----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Managing Cultural Diversity In A Global World*

----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Introduction and background

For telcos with global ambitions, success in the next twenty years will stem from successful joint ventures and alliances. But while it is a simple matter to draw lines across the globe in the manner of the nineteenth century colonial powers and to devise a Concert, an Atlas, or a Unisource, there is no guarantee that such alliances will thrive - or even endure. Where once a global company such as Coca-Cola simply sold its product or imposed a taste, and multinationals geared the names or colours of identical products to the results of market research, the survival of transnational telcos will depend on flexibility in managing cultural diversity.

Primarily, this entails the successful management of a multi-cultural workforce in a global context. But it also means being able to vary services across cultures: not simple marketing ploys imposed from outside, but an understanding of how culture drives differences from within. A simple example of this is the way in which different cultures use the phone: an American walks into his appartment after a week away and switches on the answerphone; an Italian rings his mother. One requires an add-on device; the other needs single number dialling and favoured-number discounts. These differences may appear trivial, but they are profoundly culture-driven.

The development of genuinely transnational business organizations therefore requires managerial approaches and systems which allow for variations deriving from such diversity. This might be "national" cultural diversity between nations, races or ethnic groups (eg. in a two-nation joint-venture), intra-national diversity involving the range of cultures within a single nation (eg. in the USA), or internal cultural diversity where managers need to deal with foreign-owned transnational companies in their own country (eg. a British telco manager dealing with a Korean manufacturer in the UK). All this is well known, and there is indeed a burgeoning literature on the management of cultural diversity. But the problems go deeper than is often appreciated: it is not simply a matter of minding manners or learning to deal with varying attitudes to punctuality. These are the surface manifestations of much deeper differences in mental structures.

A few examples will make this clear.

# Negotiating Alliances

In a world in which cross-cultural joint ventures and alliances are essential, problems of ethics and trust will loom large. How is it possible to achieve a balance between the necessary and the contingent in business ethics, or in other words to allow for flexibility between a strong corporate ethic and the need to adapt to difficult local conditions? And how can we learn to build a lasting trust relationship with people from a different culture? How can managers going to the negotiating table be prepared for the very different styles they will face? It is not merely a question of setting bargaining ranges, toning down confrontational styles, or following pre-established rules. That is sufficient for making a deal, but not for setting up a permanent alliance. It is essential to grasp the deep structures - religious, social, ethnic and ethical - which influence the way the opposite party will reason, the way they will react to different presentational styles, what they expect and how they listen.

This requires a level of genuine understanding which goes beyond rapidly-acquired skills. Recent studies have shown how an inherent sense of cultural superiority is often enough to undermine European joint-ventures in Third World countries even when extensive training has been provided. Such "superiority" emanates from non-verbal aspects of behaviour like the tone of voice and body language, which few people other than accomplished actors are able to control. If, then, as this would suggest and has recently been asserted in telco documents on cultural diversity (eg. by BT and France Telecom), humility is a key factor, how is it possible to inculcate this quality in managers whose education has often prepared them for anything but humility?

# Human Resources

The global operator obviously needs managers capable of working globally. Some European telcos are now recruiting "non-nationals" in order to resolve their problems quickly, but how does a human resource specialist trained in his own culture, who can make a rough assessment of a candidate's capabilities in a brief interview, deal with the problems of recruiting staff in other cultures? How valid is psychological testing when applied cross-culturally? How much do most human resource managers know about other school and university systems? Suppose a German manager needs to choose between, say, a Finn, an Italian and a Portuguese. That would require an awareness not only of the very different education systems in European countries but the ways in which educational background influences patterns of thought and managerial style: how, for example, education underlies the way in which the same conflict might be addressed in France by seeking orders from a superior, in Britain by sending the people in conflict on a management course, and in Germany by employing a consultant.

Assuming for a moment that these problems can be resolved, how might the issue of dual allegiance be tackled? For the employment of local managers necessitates the creation of loyalty on their part to a distant entity with culturally diverse norms and assumptions. Even a long-term expatriate who is nominally still of the same nationality but has in fact "gone native" might respond to an order in this way: "I'm sure my local employees won't like this, so I won't tell them and try to smooth over the issue in some other way." It can be much more difficult for the locally employed manager, especially under stress.

# Everyday Work

Then there is the nitty-gritty of everyday working together, the problem of creating the rituals, the back-room humour and the "off-stage" relationships which are so vital to harmonious corporate life. Company jokes and in-group stories, for example, are notoriously difficult to translate into other cultures: what sounds laudable to a Briton can seem risible to an Italian. Companies which contrived to impose a global corporate culture, such as IBM, did not face the insidious cultural problems of a transnational organization.

Language is another problem. Although it might appear that the use of English as the common working language of the international teleco community favours native English-speakers, this can turn into a disadvantage when one of them is unaware of the problems that a regional accent or rapid speech might create, and how linguistic confidence can be perceived as a manifestation of quasi-colonial arrogance. Non-conformity with what might be termed the "industry pidgin" can also generate unexpected tensions.

Worse still, behind the words on the surface lurk centuries of cultural and ideological rivalry which has often exploded into war. At moments of strain, when a minor conflict might have irreversible consequences, simmering stereotypes and prejudices boil up. Studies of cross-cultural teams indicate that often it is the most superficially similar cultures which in the end experience the greatest traumas: while differences such as those between the US and Japan are obvious, serious problems often occur where they are least expected - say, between Britain and Denmark - and warning signals are neither perceived nor acted upon. In a world as competitive as that of the telcos will be in coming decades, nothing may be taken for granted.

2. The Way Forward

Cultural training is essential to avoid potential conflict, and to improve the disastrous failure rate of joint-ventures in the recent past. In fact, most telcos with global ambitions now provide cross-cultural training in order to create genuinely international managers. This sometimes involves in-house training, and is also provided by consultants and business schools. Yet much of this training deals with the traditional, superficial problems without seeking to explore the deep causes of underlying cultural differences. Another problem is that much of the research and background material is rapidly out-dated as the pace of change accelerates.

An innovative approach has been taken by the collaborative venture known as "Euroteam". This was started in 1991 by the five main European operators (BT, Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom, STET and Telefónica de España) with the aim of contributing by means of the organization of regular workshops and exchanges to the internationalization of telco operators. Euroteam was later expanded to include all European operators who were members of ETNO (the organization of European Telecoms Network Operators), and at present has about eleven members ranging from Finland, Norway and Denmark to Portugal. It runs a series of international workshops - hosted alternately by the members - whose focus is on Europe and Telecommunications. There is a regular programme called "Working Across Cultures", and there has been a successful pilot version of a more theoretical workshop called "Understanding Cultural Diversity" which may be run again in the future. Other programmes also include at least one session on cultural diversity. These workshops allow managers from member companies to learn and work together, and thus facilitate cross-cultural personal networking even within the ambit of fierce competition.

The problem of devising some form of training within the industry has also been recognized at the inter-governmental level, where "Cross-Cultural Training and Education" has been included among the Global Information Society projects of G-7.

3. Conclusion

No comprehensive solution to the problems of cultural diversity in the context of the telecommunications industry has yet been conceived. Indeed, there has been little specific research. Yet it is clear that preparation for the successful management of such diversity in all its ramifications will be a vital component of long-term success in the global market.

For while business is already global, management remains culture-bound.

* Reprinted by permission of the editor of MCE

------------------------------------
DOES YOUR EMPLOYMENT EQUITY COMMITTEE DELIVER RESULTS?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Strategic Importance of Change Leaders Modeling Change*

By Linda Ackerman Anderson and Dean Anderson who can be contacted at

www.beingfirst.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction

One of the toughest change efforts we supported was made more difficult because the CEO was not willing to change himself in the very ways he was demanding that his organization change. The company was transforming its strategy, operations, business processes, and culture. The cultural goals included behaviors of greater teamwork, more overt sharing of information and power, increased risk-taking, and the essential need to drive decision-making down in the organization. The new business strategy and operations needed these new behaviors to succeed.

When it became apparent that the CEO continued to make side deals, usurp key decisions, and exclude some of his key players from important change discussions, we knew that the leadership of the change was seriously impaired. How do you get senior leaders to really understand that they must model the changes they are sponsoring, or they will lose credibility, cause resistance and cynicism to mushroom, and be a major factor in their effort failing? How do you get leaders to walk their own talk?

This article explores the key change leadership issue of modeling, and provides insights for how you can get your leaders to model the changes they are asking of your organization.

2. How Do You Know if Your Change Effort Requires Leadership Modeling of New Behaviors and Cultural Norms?

Your change effort requires leaders to model new behaviors and norms if the new state you are trying to implement clearly requires new behaviors and norms to succeed. If the current mindsets, behavior patterns and cultural norms are adequate to drive the new state, then you do not need leaders to model anything other than their current behaviors.

Typically, leaders see their major change efforts in terms of strategy, structure, business processes, technology, skills, products and services—the "work" of the organization. Sometimes, such changes do not require much human or cultural change. Developing and using new technical or professional skills does not necessarily require personal change. Selling a new product or service does not typically require personal change. In these cases, modeling new behavior is not a requirement because there is no new behavior to model.

Most of today’s change efforts, however, do require significant changes in behavior to succeed. Many also require fundamental shifts in people’s mindsets and how they view the marketplace, people or customers. If your changes are significant enough to demand changes in behavior, mindset, culture, relationships, language, or any other aspect of how people work with each other, then the challenge of leadership modeling is paramount to your success. Your leaders will have to model the new mindset and behavior first, or your employees will not believe that the change is real.

All personal change comes from within the individual, from the inside out. Some change efforts attempt to mandate changes in people from the outside in, through strategies like threat of job loss, new performance standards, or replacing old systems with new ones. Ultimately, however, change efforts only succeed if the people choose to change. Otherwise, they may change for a short while, and then revert to their old patterns. We have even seen people revert to using paper reports after their organizations implemented multi-million dollar IT projects. Personal change only sticks to the degree the people choose and commit to the change—for themselves.

When leaders overtly model the new behaviors first, they create a safe environment for managers and employees to change. They raise people’s willingness to choose the new direction. Without the modeling, however, employees are more reluctant to risk or invest in the new behaviors. Employees look to their leaders for the support—and the precedent—to change personally. Leadership modeling delivers both.

In the case mentioned above, we, the consultants, were clear about the leadership modeling that would be required, but the leaders were not, especially the CEO. This brings us to our second question:

3. How Do You Engage Leaders in Recognizing Their Personal Responsibility to Change Themselves to Mobilize the Changes They Are Asking of Their Organization?

Getting the leaders to see that they have personal work to do in the change is a challenging task, especially if the leaders think they can delegate responsibility for the effort to others and just get interim progress reports. We recommend several strategies to raise executive awareness.

Early in your change effort, engage your leaders in answering the question, "Will we need new mindsets or behaviors in our organization to succeed in our new state?" If the answer is, "yes," then ask them to specifically identify those behaviors. Challenge them to evaluate themselves to see if they currently model the new behaviors or not. Then present the question, "What do we risk as leaders if we continue to act in the old ways in our change effort?" Approached rationally, most leaders see the wisdom in leadership modeling.

You must help leaders see this requirement for modeling before they inadvertently communicate one thing and then do another. Once they repetitively model the old way while espousing the new, they will lose credibility. Do your homework, and develop scenarios, questions, and data that demonstrate their need to model the change clearly. Consider using stories and data from past changes that suffered from the leaders not walking the talk. You may also have stories of some successes to demonstrate the effectiveness of modeling.

Begin the change with an Executive Briefing about how to lead change to introduce the full breadth of requirements of transformational change. Emphasize the depth of personal and cultural change that drives transformation. Build big picture understanding of what the leaders are undertaking—organizationally and personally--when they give the green light to change.

Use the Drivers of Change Model to flesh out the full scope of the change, showing how shifts in your marketplace requirements for success or your business drive needed changes in your culture, leadership behavior and mindset.

Ask the leaders how they see the change affecting them personally -- their role, priorities, ways of working, their motivations, fears and hopes. Ask them how they want their staff and workforce to see them as sponsors or leaders of the change. Have them evaluate how this influences their need to change personally.

4. How Do You Support the Leaders to Undergo These Personal Changes, and Sustain the Changes Throughout the Effort and Beyond?

Your strategy to accomplish this aspect of the change depends on the degree of personal change required of the leaders. If you need skills and behaviors that are only moderately different, you can plan for special training or use your existing executive development vehicles to accomplish this work during implementation. However, if the changes affect the leaders’ mindsets, behavior and relationships, you need a more extensive and tailored approach. Consider these strategies :

Depending on the magnitude of the changes, or the perceived "threat level" of your leaders to change, make sure you have the quality of professional support needed to take on this work. When it comes to supporting people to change from the inside out, find experienced consultants to help you.

Host a special session for the leaders to discuss the changes required in their mindsets, behavior, culture, values, etc. Explore with them how to behave according to the new requirements, and how to assist each other to sustain these changes. Make sure you plan for adequate time to fully explore these topics. This cannot be accomplished in a brief staff meeting or in the middle of an operating crisis!

Sponsor a "Breakthrough Change Leadership" Program to experientially reveal the changes in mindset, behavior and relationships that the transformation requires. Follow this session with discussions about how to reinforce the personal changes, how to self-monitor, how to give each other feedback on behavior, and how to support the entire leadership community to make the changes stick.

Alter your executive incentive and rewards system to directly reinforce the new behaviors, and then use it!

Create a cascading strategy for the rest of the leadership and management ranks to undergo this same type of personal change. Design an ongoing and sustained process to reinforce, celebrate, and reward visible changes in behavior. Keep this work linked directly to the business outcomes of the transformation.

Provide executive coaching to those leaders who need the personal support to make and sustain the personal changes.

5. In Summary—Walking the Talk

A transformational change that is devoid of the leaders modeling the behaviors and norms they are asking of the organization is doomed to fail. It is essential to make the requirements for personal change relevant—and essential—to the success of the change. This type of work is not a "nice-to-do" type of thing. It is a key ingredient in your change strategy. If you are currently undergoing a transformational change in which the leaders are NOT modeling the new mindset and behaviors, find a way to "stop the action" for a risk assessment of this dynamic. Gather data to make the point. When your organizational and technical changes require shifts in leadership thinking and behavior in order to succeed, your leaders need to step up to their responsibility to walk the talk they are asking of the organization. Good luck!

* Reprinted by permission of the authors

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. White Paper: The Role of e-HR & Organisation Effectiveness

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION

In 2000 Simon Pugh and Mark Doughty became the joint founders of a company called Brite Human Resources (Brite-HR). Today Brite-HR has emerged as a leader in the application and utilisation of smart Human Resource technology, designing bespoke and pragmatic software solutions for some of Europe’s leading companies. Solutions that work, leverage, drive and sustain organization success. This success is as a result of two fellow professionals meeting by chance and realizing that together their combined talents (within their respective fields) could not only offer a new and refreshing approach to E-HR, but in doing so provide compelling context and a clear rationale for managing people resources, so that HR’s credibility and contribution to organization effectiveness is unreservedly and inequitably recognized in equal terms and status as the CFO.

The paper makes a robust argument by looking at the role of HR past and present especially in an emerging and growing technological environment. It also offers some insights as to why E-HR is not meeting expectations, why HR need to rethink their value proposition, and how elements of technology in the right hands can and will make a significant difference to organisation success.

2. Setting the scene

In recent years there has been significant growth in companies buying total enterprise resource software platforms (ERP) such as Peoplesoft, SAP, Oracle, Great Plains, Snowdrop Systems etc. And the trend seems set to continue. Research by Forester estimates that the global market for E-HR is set to grow to around £14b by 2004. Perhaps this growth is based on the belief that in a world of complexity and business uncertainty the key to organisation (sustained) success is the effective management of people. As a result Human Resources (HR) departments are increasingly being seen as key in the enhancement of the customer value chain and competitive positioning, not surprisingly high expectations are now being placed on E-HR to deliver.

A recent survey (2002) by HR consultants Watson Wyatt has found that 75% of companies plan to enhance their e-HR capabilities over the next two years to enable HR departments to become more strategic. One-fifth of the 173 companies surveyed are also planning to spend more than 11 per cent of their change programme budget on e-HR solutions. But the reality is that E-HR is at best at the foundation levels of delivering value. Major E-HR installations with some of the world’s biggest suppliers are being mothballed, with project cancellation costs running into millions of pounds. New technology leading towards HR outsourcing and shared service centres is not without its failures. If 50-60% of typical organisations costs are people, then why is it that only 14 of the FTSE 100 companies have HR represented at board level? Even with overwhelming global empirical research showing ‘people’ do make the difference, people metrics are either not understood, not seen as a priority or simply not getting the attention they deserve.

3. The role of hr in the (new) e-economy

In a world of growing complexity and business uncertainty, organisations perhaps more than ever before are relying on the notation that ‘employees are their most important asset’. But this is not true. For it is employees with the right skill, right talent and right level of capability along with a high level of engagement (buy-in) with an organisation’s objectives, who are an organisation’s MOST important asset. Regrettably, whilst the HR market is saturated with system solutions, there is no real expert HR system solution on the market today with the capability to tell the CEO or HR Director who the right people are, what high performance and talent looks like and who is an asset or who is a cost. At best HR software solutions are little more than glorified databases.

The data output from these systems offer very little strategic value, moreover, the data is often historical and worthless; put simply in maximising these solutions to leverage the performance of the organisation, it’s like driving a car through the rear view mirror. In 1955 the well respected management guru Peter Drucker stated in his book "The Practice Of Management" - that ‘Human Resources - HR (or personnel as it was known then) have an inability to prove that they are making a contribution to the company. They seem to be in search of a ‘solution’ that will impress their management colleagues. They continually seem to complain that they lack status.’

Nearly 50 years later, what has changed? The challenge today is for HR is to embrace technology, so that the ‘HR service’ to the line provides the leverage for sustained organisation performance. Yet in 2002 research from Roffey Park Institute concluded that HR people lack credibility, foresight and influence. Not surprising then that only 14 companies in the top FTSE 100 have a HR director on the board. If 50-60% of an organisations costs are its people, then the questions needs to be asked why is this the case?

Finance directors have a permanent place in boardrooms because they can harness financial information to report results and predict future ones. Yet HR reports are just as critical to the company because human capital represents a high percentage of shareholder value. In a similar vein, there is a wealth of information and metrics stored in HR databases, which if merged with other information sources across the enterprise could add significant insight to organisation effectiveness and performance. However, with today’s E-HR technology solutions it would appear that this opportunity is just not being fully utilised.

That said, it must be recognised that management practice over the last 50 years has changed considerably towards ‘people practices and value of people as a resource’. And whilst there is overwhelming empirical research that shows the impact of people across the service value chain (see back page), organisations still seem to struggle to harness that potential. For example research (2001) by Bain Consultancy has shown that 90% of companies do not achieve profitable growth, and the poor ‘management of people resources’ is attributed to this failure. Perhaps more damming, research by ‘The Balanced Scorecard Collaborative’ (2001) has shown that: 9 out of 10 companies fail to execute their strategy. 6 of 10 do not even link their budgets to strategy. Only 5% of the workforce understand what their company is trying to do. No wonder profit is not forthcoming if employees do not have the context in order to do their job. So why is it that when there is overwhelming empirical research towards the value of ‘people factors’, i.e. the major contributors to an organisations success or failure, that most organisations fail to make the link. If in a world of ‘me-too’ products and services, where people represent a true source of differation, why is HR lacking the ability to steer and influence the people factors at Board level?

The answer may well lie in how HR is metaphorically wired. The profession seems to be steeped in a history of admin and employment law, and little understanding of key business drivers, process, service value chain, and just simply understanding the basics around measuring performance over results.

A simple test would be to ask HR these 10 questions, answers to which they should know, if they are concerned with the service they offer:

#1 To the nearest 5% what are the earnings before tax and depreciation for their company for the last two quarters?

#2 Typically, 80% of business is done through 20% of key customers who are their company’s key customers?

#3 Their company will be reliant on the effectiveness of 3 or 4 core business processes. What are those core processes and where is the biggest bottleneck at this moment in time?

#4 One of those core processes will have bottleneck (pinch-point!), which is causing their organisation major grief…where is that bottleneck?

#5 How much of their training budget is spent on sorting out bottlenecks?

#6 In percentage terms what is their voluntary staff turnover rate? (Employees leaving on their own accord), and how much does this cost their organisation annually?

#7 What are the top five reasons for employees leaving their company, where is the evidence to prove this?

#8 What are the direct replacement costs for these leavers?

#9 How many of your new recruits within 6/12 months of joining go on to achieve above average performance rating?

#10 How many objectives set with your appraisal/performance management system are aligned to your business strategy. How do they know?

In most cases HR will not know or offer some mute explanation. For example, whilst many established HR departments measure employee turnover and sickness, research by the Institute of Research Studies shows that only 21% of HR departments evaluate the link between HR practices and productivity. Nevertheless, in the emerging technological age it would now appear that this chartered profession ‘Human Resources’ and in using Drucker’s term of ‘solution’ see E-HR systems as the link to provide the missing answers.

4. Hype v reality: are today’s hr system solutions meeting expectations? - the people factor and business performance

More and more companies are now looking to technology and in particular enterprise resource platforms (ERP) to understand knowledge and as a result increase their competitive position. With the belief that effective management of people is critical, pressurised line managers at the very least need a collection of processes and software solutions that relieve them from routine, basic, administration. Yet HR processes are increasingly being seen as key in the enhancement of the customer value chain and competitive positioning, high expectations are being placed on HR to deliver, irrespective of what basic needs line managers want. This enthusiasm has led to an explosion of what is commonly known as E-HR software solutions.

A recent survey (2002) by HR consultants Watson Wyatt has found that 75% of companies plan to enhance their E-HR capabilities over the next two years to enable HR departments to become more strategic. Results from the BSE/E-HR survey 2002 show that three out of four companies want to increase the amount of information held on company intranets and other e-HR solutions. One-fifth of the 173 companies surveyed by Watson Wyatt are also planning to spend more than 11 per cent of their change programme budget on e-HR solutions. However, that said the Watson Wyatt research also concluded that employers are still unsure about the benefits of E-HR and many report low usage by their employees. More importantly, just over a third of companies report that E-HR had only been slightly effective or not effective at all in helping them to achieve their goals, 33 per cent state it had proved moderately effective and just 8 per cent of employers believe e-HR has been very effective. Nevertheless, with this new ‘solution’ it would appear that HR are now caught in a sea change as this emerging technology is beginning to influence the value of their work.

Today, within the HR software market there are a myriad of HR systems, payroll, training admin, 360 degree feedback, psychological testing and competency software tools – typically operating in their own software fiefdoms, all offering a so called unique service/proposition, enticing HR to stratospheric levels of excitement. Some of the world’s leaders in this arena such as Peoplesoft, SAP, and Oracle (where the latter two companies have added HR modules to their existing primary suite of business process software, which often has led to HR becoming second cousin in wider organisation procurement issues), offer typical installations of between £2m and £5m.

That said, evidence suggests that most organisations fail to recognise that nearly all HR software on the market today is at the foundation level of e-HR. "Very few organisations have reached the strategic level of e-HR. This involves the development and deployment of tasks that allow managers, employees and HR to use the massive amount of data created and housed within the foundation and service levels of emerging Internet technology.

As a bare minimum (expensive) HR technology is being used as a database to manage multiple HR transactions or for employees to take a ‘self-service’ approach to their personal files, i.e. automated forms for change of address; check benefits and holiday entitlement, or book training and development interventions etc. Perhaps it could be argued that instead of wasting money on lots of paper, HR is now wasting money on non-strategic databases. More importantly, the buyers of this software (i.e. HR) fail to realise that most HR software solutions available today are based on client server (old) technology. Even the world leaders have legacy client server products to support and are reluctant to spend development costs moving their products into web platforms through company intranets or through Application Service Providers (ASP) – web enabled platforms hosted outside of the company.

Peoplesoft (V8.1) the world’s number one HR software has only recently moved to a web platform, yet it could be argued that this latest offering is little more than what was available in its client server application. This is because a HR system has a high degree of functionality and in most cases is over engineered, designed by people who have no tangible experience of HR, and rarely do these developers consult with line managers to see what their needs are. Instead systems installed like Peoplesoft become difficult and costly to install and upgrade. In recent months a number of well recognised FTSE 250 companies have canned or mothballed their E-HR strategies to the cost of millions of pounds, simply because hype is not meeting reality.

Because of the latent principles inherent in HR software design, the data contained within them is often of little use, unless it can communicate seamlessly with other software platforms. This in itself is telling because client server products are at best glorified databases, where communication and sharing of information is very often restricted. In addition, systems that to some extent work well at a national level, simply fail to support new languages, different employment practices or work cultures. Ultimately, and especially in HR there is now an increasing need to utilise and integrate different HR systems, i.e. recruitment, legislative requirements, payroll, CPD, 360, competencies, talent development, organisation design, job roles, career bands, job profiles, performance objectives, training etc.

Single software solutions are no longer the answer. Nevertheless, web enabled systems can allow for much smarter communication between the web, client servers and any other software platform. Web technology positively impacts on an organisation’s bottom line according to a study by IDC. The research revealed that ASP implementations have an average yield of 404% (profit over cost). Further key findings concluded that almost half the organisations in the study had payback within 6 months and that the average payback for an ASP outsource solution was 1.33 years on an average total investment of $4.2million.

The average initial investment was $399,000. However, irrespective of the technology platform, the Holy Grail for HR is still concerned with line managers using systems to influence or manage performance. Yet paradoxically these systems are often designed and configured to such an extent that they are purely for HR’s use. At best line managers have restricted access to them. For some reason, HR seem to overlook the most simple acid test of HR solutions – to what extent has our solution improved the way in which our line managers manage performance? So in reality HR is continuing at a pace, attempting to use technology for new innovative approaches in the belief that it will improve service levels. In particular, in many large organisations there is now a strong movement towards shared service centres (SSC), which has provided the opportunity for ‘non-strategic’ elements of HR in one central place, like a call centre.

Although this new ‘service’ arrangement is in its early days, it would appear that once again HR seem to be missing the opportunity before them. For example; a large UK bank has recently moved to the SSC model. For managers and employees to get information from a ‘live’ HR operator, they have to negotiate 78 different telephone command options before getting the information they require. This technological shift has also led to the idea that perhaps HR can be outsourced.

Over the last two years, there has been an explosion of outsourcing companies, e.g. Exult, Capita, and E-peopleserve (the latter being joint venture between BT and Accenture consulting). Here organisations are seeking to exploit the value that technology provided by managing certain aspects of HR ‘outside’ of the organisation. Today these companies are openly celebrating £m contracts in outsourcing services, as HR teams move towards "getting rid of their low value activities". As a result, HR is being tasked to automate or outsource low value tasks, through the greater use of technology.

The big question is whether cost savings can be realised from HR enterprise solution implementations to outsourcing solutions? The model opposite suggests that elements of outsourcing HR services are possible at Level 1. and lend themselves to significant cost savings, e.g. procurement of training. However, current evidence suggests that higher value HR services do not fit with pure outsourcing because one internal cost becomes an external cost. For example when the HR outsourcing company ‘Exult’ won the £5m outsourcing contract with BP in 1999 it was seen as ‘the future’ in HR services.

But BP stopped and withdrew from the whole experiment in less than a year. Speaking at the Institute of Personnel Development conference in October 2001, John Melo, Vice President of BP’s downstream digital business told delegates: "It has not been a challenge putting e-HR on the web but more to do with getting people to use it. Our IT and HR departments led this project, but we needed to start with the business wanting to do it in the first place! We forgot about the people and the processes and didn’t get buy-in from line managers".

BP have also cited that there HR costs increased by a third after the introduction of e-HR. Perhaps more importantly in all of the examples and criticisms sited above what consistently seems to be missing are the key strategic opportunities for the business. HR software vendors typically ensure that line managers have restricted access to HR software even though it is line managers and not HR who are accountable for employee and organisation performance. For example, the reports generated from current HR systems more often than not focus on historical data. Whilst some of this data is useful, it does not necessarily add any strategic value to the business. In fact it’s both dangerous and often pointless. Yet with the technology available today it is possible to establish:

>> Replacement Value – the cost to recruit and train to current performance levels

>> Knowledge Value – the cost of re- finding and deploying current knowledge • Market Value – the external value for equivalent talented employees, typically the top 20% of capability that drives 80% of corporate success. • Maintenance Value – the cost of managing employees in time (compared to others), training, and development

>> Talent Value – the investment of identifying and developing people from within • Coaching Value – the nurturing of improved performance

>> Output Value – the overall performance and measurement of contribution to organisation success This value can be established and realised by creating simple but effective reporting tools, designed from an output perspective with questions, such as: "if we continue to increase employee benefits at these levels, what will be the effect on the business?"; "which of our new starters (by country, division, location etc) achieve above average performance rating within 6 months of joining the company?" ; "which HR officer through recruitment has the ability and talent to spot these high performers?’; "how many objectives set within performance management are S.M.A.R.T, and aligned with business strategy?"; "Where is talent in the organisation, how critical it is to business strategy?" ; " Where does talent fit with our succession plans?"; "How likely is it that our talented people will leave the company within the next 6 months, what is the potential impact this could have? Show me by country, region, division and function." ; "where are we most at risk with our current succession plans?"; "How many objectives are unlikely to be met, what impact and risk will that have on business strategy?"; "what are the top 5 reasons for people voluntarily leaving our company, show me by country, region, division and function?" ; "what if we created a new business stream who would have the capability to lead and develop that business?"

The technology and capability to create and utilise this knowledge (an expert system) held in corporate databases (not just HR) is available today. Yet in reality the big software providers do not think or design the systems to operate in this way and as a result they are not able to provide real expert HR software. In reality most HR software is designed by IT specialists not business people. In addition, whilst

Peoplesoft claim to be the World’s number one HR system solution provider, research suggests that from an internal management perspective they have no consistent global or local approach to the performance management of their people. And where this practice is undertaken it is predominately paper based. Yet they sell on-line performance management as part of their solution! In reality, HR enterprise resource and ASP systems are still unable to meet the line and E-HR challenge or provide THE HR solution.

5. Summary

HR as a profession is still struggling to make the impact and earn the respect it deserves. e-HR offered as the saviour for HR is in its current format simply not working, yet HR and organisations are being duped into spending £m’s for something which is fundamentally flawed. However, it does not have to be this way. People can and do make the difference. HR can obtain the respect at board level, although HR does not necessarily need a boardroom seat to make a difference. Impact can come from what they do, the way they think and the relationships they make, but thinking on people metrics has to be different.

There needs to be a demonstrable shift in understanding the key drivers of business performance and how people metrics support or subtract from that effort. Ultimately what is needed from a E-HR perspective is a ‘HR expert system’ that not only meets all of the line and HR requirements, but also drives and facilitates line management to focus on improving people performance, organisation flexibility, customer-focus and profit responsibility.

Finally, when choosing the E-HR solution, consider the reporting capabilities think like a CEO. Think what they want to know. Ultimately, for an organisation to know and not to act, is not to know at all. Mark Doughty February 2002

----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. M&A: Five Tips for Selecting the Right HR Technology Systems*

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is your company likely to acquire a new business unit or division in the near future? Now is the time to start thinking about the implications of the transaction for your HR technology systems.

Here are five tips to help you define the scope of your integration needs and determine the most appropriate post- transaction solutions to adopt.

Never assume your way is best. Just because you're the acquiring company doesn't mean your HR technology solutions will be the best ones for the merged organization.

Consider the following scenario. A target company has a highly efficient ERP-based benefits solution that could be expanded post-transaction to cover plan participants throughout the merged organization. But the acquiring company instead chooses to transfer the acquired employees into its existing benefits administration system that has limited functionality as compared to the ERP system. Clearly, not the most cost-effective and efficient solution.

To avoid such mistakes, approach every merger and acquisition with an open mind. Ask these questions: Which systems and solutions of the target company could improve our processes? What HR technology investments has the target company recently made, and what have been their rates of return? If we were to start from scratch, whose system would make more sense -- ours, theirs or a brand-new solution?

Assess the impact on employees. Because the successful integration of new employees is critical to acquisition success, consider the impact of HR technology decisions on employee satisfaction. Say, for example, that the target company regularly communicates with employees via an employee portal. Then you should review your own portal and other communication vehicles to determine whether enhancements are needed to match the target organization's communication effectiveness. And take a look at the degree of efficient self-service you offer employees, to make sure those services are as advanced as those offered by the target company.

Compare the costs and benefits of insourcing vs. outsourcing. Because HR integration issues can be complex in acquisition situations, many companies are tempted to completely outsource the biggest processes, such as health and welfare and pension benefits administration. But there could be a smarter way. Data from Watson Wyatt's Benefits Outsourcing Study suggest that a combination of insourcing and outsourcing could produce better results. Conduct a strategic analysis to assess the costs and benefits of all available options.

Factor in plan redesign and other changes. Systems that work well could become less effective if plan requirements change significantly. Make sure the solution you adopt is flexible enough to adapt to plan design and other changes that typically occur during acquisition integration.

Consider conversion issues. How accessible is the target company's employee data? Can it be quickly and easily integrated into your existing or new solution? If not, you'll need to ensure that payroll, benefits and other services for employees of the target company stay in place while their data is cleaned up and transferred.

Ultimately, the best approaches use acquisition scenarios as catalysts for improvements to HR processes and systems. For the best results, and to avoid expensive surprises, make sure you carefully evaluate your HR technology issues during pre-merger due diligence. By keeping an open mind and taking a holistic view of your HR technology options, you can blend the best of both companies in the equation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

5. IBM Finds Profit in Diversity*

By David A. Thomas who can be contacted at Working Knowledge at

at http://workingknowledge.hbs.edu/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

WK Editor's Note: Like many companies, IBM took big strides to eliminate discrimination by attempting to ignore cultural, racial, and other differences among its vast worldwide workforce. That ended when Lou Gerstner became CEO. Gerstner initiated a diversity task-force initiative that would "uncover and understand differences among the groups and find ways to appeal to a broader set of employees and customers," according to HBS professor David A. Thomas.

Since then, the number of female executives in the company has grown by 370 percent, ethnic minority executives have jumped 233 percent and the number of self-identified gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender executives gained 733 percent. Another benefit: "By deliberately seeing ways to more effectively reach a broader range of customers, IBM has seen significant bottom-line results," says Thomas.

In this Harvard Business Review excerpt, Thomas describes the key factors that made the initiative a success.

Any major corporate change will succeed only if a few key factors are in place: strong support from company leaders, an employee base that is fully engaged with the initiative, management practices that are integrated and aligned with the effort, and a strong and well-articulated business case for action. IBM's diversity task forces benefited from all four.

Demonstrate leadership support

It's become a cliché to say that leadership matters, but the issue merits discussion here because diversity is one of the areas in which executive leadership is often ineffectual. Executives' espoused beliefs are frequently inconsistent with their behavior, and they typically underestimate how much the corporation really needs to change to achieve its diversity goals. That's because diversity strategies tend to lay out lofty goals without providing the structures to educate senior executives in the specific challenges faced by various constituencies. In addition, these strategies often don't provide models that teach or encourage new behaviors.

IBM has taken several approaches to helping executives deepen their awareness and understanding. To begin with, the structure of the task forces—how they operate and who is on them—immerses executive sponsors in the specific challenges faced by the employee constituency groups. The groups are a formal mechanism for learning, endorsed at the highest levels of the company.

Second, the chief diversity officer, Ted Childs, acts as a partner with the CEO as well as coach and adviser to other executives. In addition to educating them on specific issues, as he did when the company decided to offer domestic partner benefits, Childs also works to ensure that they behave in ways that are consistent with the company's diversity strategy...

And third, Gerstner and later (current CEO Sam) Palmisano not only sanctioned the task force process but actively sought to be role models themselves. A number of the executives I interviewed were struck by Gerstner's interest and active involvement in the development of high-potential minority and female senior managers and junior executives; he took a personal interest in how they were being mentored and what their next jobs would be. He also challenged assumptions about when people could be ready for general management assignments. In one case, Gerstner and his team were discussing the next job for a high-potential female executive. Most felt that she needed a bigger job in her functional area, but Gerstner felt that the proposed job, while involving more responsibility, would add little to the candidate's development. Instead she was given a general management assignment—and the team got a signal from the CEO about his commitment to diversity. His behavior communicated a sense of appreciation and accountability for people development. Indeed, accountability for results became as critical in this domain as it was for all business goals.

Gerstner also modeled desired behaviors in his interactions with his direct reports. One of them told me this story:

"During a board of directors dinner, I had to go to [my daughter's] "back-to-school night," the one night a year when you meet the teachers. I had been at the board meeting that day. I was going to be at the board meeting the next day. But it was the dinner that posed a problem, and I said, "Lou, I'll do whatever you want, but this is the position I am in," and…he didn't even blink. He said, "Go to back-to-school night. That is more important." And then…he told the board at dinner why I wasn't there and why it was so important…to make it possible for working parents to have very big jobs but still be involved parents...."

Engage employees as partners

While the six-month task force effort was consistent with IBM's history of promoting equal opportunity, the use of the task force structure to address issues of diversity represented a significant culture shift. IBM was an organization that had discouraged employees from organizing around any interest not specifically defined by the requirements of their jobs. The idea of employees organizing to advocate was anathema. One white male executive said, "Does this mean that we can have a communist cell here? Are we going to have hundreds and hundreds of these?" The skepticism reached up to the highest levels: When Childs first proposed the task force strategy, Gerstner asked him one question: "Why?"

But in the end, IBM's task force structure paved the way for employee buy-in because executives then had to invite constituent groups to partner with them in addressing the diversity challenge. The partnerships worked because three essential components were in place: mutual expectations, mutual influence, and trust.

We did not set quotas, but we did set goals — Lou Gerstner

When the task forces were commissioned, Childs and Gerstner set expectations and made sure that roles and responsibilities were unambiguous. Initially, the task forces' charters were short, only six months (the groups are still active today), and their mission was clear: to explore the issues, opportunities, and strategies affecting their constituencies and customers. Once this work was done, it fell to the corporation's senior executives to respond and to report on the task forces' progress at various junctures to IBM's Worldwide Management Council. Gerstner and Childs followed up with the task force sponsors to ensure that the groups were gathering meaningful information and connecting it to the business.

The task forces' work has evolved to focus on more tactical issues, and the organization has demonstrated its willingness to be influenced, committing significant resources to efforts suggested by the groups. Trust was also built as the task force structure allowed employees more face time with executives—executives they would likely not have had a chance to meet—and provided new opportunities for mentoring…

The task force structure has been copied on a smaller scale within specific business units. Even without a mandate from corporate brass, most units have created their own diversity councils, offering local support for achieving each unit's specific diversity goals. Here, too, the employee partnership model prevails.

Integrate diversity with management practices

Sustaining change requires that diversity become an integrated part of the company's management practices. This was a priority for Gerstner, who told me:

If you were to go back and look at ten years' worth of executive committee discussions, you would find two subjects, and only two, that appeared on every one of the agendas. One was the financial performance, led by our CFO. The second was a discussion of management changes, promotions, moves, and so on, led by our HR person.

In my interviews, among the most frequently mentioned diversity-related HR practice was the five-minute drill, which began with Gerstner's top team and has cascaded down from the chairman to two levels down from CEO.

The five-minute drill takes place during the discussion of management talent at the corporate and business unit levels. During meetings of the senior team, executives are expected at any moment to be able to discuss any high-potential manager. According to interviewees, an explicit effort is made to ensure that minorities and females are discussed along with white males. The result has been to make the executives more accountable for spotting and grooming high-potential minority managers both in their own areas and across the business. Now that it's been made explicit that IBM executives need to watch for female and minority talent, they are more open to considering and promoting these individuals when looking to fill executive jobs.

Managing diversity is also one of the core competencies used to assess managers' performance, and it's included in the mandatory training and orientation of new managers…

Both Gerstner and Palmisano have been clear that holding managers accountable for diversity-related results is key. Gerstner noted, "We did not set quotas, but we did set goals and made people aware of the people in their units who they needed to be accountable for developing."

Link diversity goals to business goals

From the beginning, Gerstner and Childs insisted that the task force effort create a link between IBM's diversity goals and its business goals—that this would be good business, not good philanthropy. The task force efforts have led to a series of significant accomplishments.

Even without a mandate from corporate brass, most units have created their own diversity councils.

For instance, IBM's efforts to develop the client base among women-owned businesses have quickly expanded to include a focus on Asian, black, Hispanic, mature (senior citizens), and Native American markets. The Market Development organization has grown revenue in the company's Small and Medium-Sized Business Sales and Marketing organization from $10 million in 1998 to hundreds of millions of dollars in 2003.

Another result of the task forces' work has been to create executive partner programs targeting demographic customer segments. In 2001, IBM began assigning executives to develop relationships with the largest women- and minority-owned businesses in the United States. This was important not only because these business sectors are growing fast but because their leaders are often highly visible role models, and their IT needs will grow and become increasingly more sophisticated. Already, these assignments have yielded impressive revenue streams with several of these companies.

The task force effort has also affected IBM's approach to supplier diversity. While the company has for decades fostered relationships with minority-owned businesses as well as businesses owned by the disabled, the work of the task forces has expanded the focus of IBM's supplier diversity program to a broader set of constituencies and provided new insights on the particular challenges each faced. The purpose of the supplier diversity program is to create a level playing field

*Reprinted by permission of Working Knowledge

------------------------------------
MANAGING FOR DIVERSITY WORKSHOP

------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Although mnay CEO’s are fond of proclaiming that "Our people are our most important asset" manay organizations tend to suffer from a chronic under-investment in the development of employees. A important first step towards correcting this tendency is to document it.

This self-assessment tool delineates some of the key dimensions that research shows distinguishes those organizations that truly do invest in people as their most important asset form those who don’t. If you struggle to get the commitment yu need to develop employees in your organization, this tool may represent the forst step to documenting where your organization stands.

7. Case Law & Legislation Review:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Case No. EC4788-02

Award Date 14 June 2004

Jurisdiction CCMA East London

Commissioner Niemand R

Subject Constructive dismissal

Issue: Jurisdiction. Constructive dismissal where the letter of resignation did not address any grievances or concerns. It was clear that the employee negotiated the terms of his resignation and exit from his employer.

Summary of facts: The employee resigned on 20 December 2000 with one month’s notice. The employee’s last day of employment was 31 January 2001. He had entered into an independent contractor agreement with the employer for a period of one year from February 2001 until January 2002. This contract was entered into at the same time as the Applicant tendered his resignation. In 1996, the Respondent was apparently instructed to close down its operations, as it was perceived as an "old era organisation". This did not materialise but the Board undertook to modify the prevailing structure of the organisation. After various discussions, the Applicant volunteered to move from his position to a lower position. He later realised that the intention was not to restructure the organisation but to get rid of the "old guard" management. The Applicant stated that he was told by a colleague that Mr Gcilitshana, the new Transformation Officer, had met with the union and stated to them that the intention was to "terrorise" the old guard until they left of their own accord and thus to get rid of them. The new Chief Executive Officer, Mr David Lefutso, had stated that he was a "township boy" and was going to run the organisation as a "township" and if anyone did not agree then they could get out. This was stated at a General Staff Meeting on the second day of Mr Lefutso’s arrival and the employee had been present at this meeting. He thought that the CEO had the backing of the Board and the union in order to have such power when entering the organisation. It was clear to the employee that the intention was that personnel who disagreed should leave on their own accord without receiving any packages. Only three of the original twelve managers "survived" the transformation process. The employee felt that his future was limited with the employer and he wanted to leave the employer but wanted to do so by maintaining a good relationship with the employer. He went to the CEO’s office and made a proposal to him, which included his exit from the organisation on the basis of receiving a one-year contract with the employer. The CEO was apparently "excited" about the proposal and requested the Employee to make the proposal in writing. This was given to the CEO on 25 October 2000. The CEO wanted the Employee’s immediate resignation but the Employee wanted the contract to be in place first. The CEO immediately called his attorneys in Johannesburg and requested that a contract be drafted. The contract arrived the very next day. The Employee perused the contract but made no changes and only signed it on 20 December 2000 on the same day that he resigned with notice from the Employer. He now felt that he was deceived into the contract by the Employer. They saw the opportunity to get the Employee out of the organisation.

When the employer apparently did not honour the agreement, the employee referred the matter to the CCMA on 20 August 2002 as a dispute concerning a breach of this agreement. A certificate of outcome was issued indicating that the matter remained unresolved. The certificate indicated that the dispute concerned an unfair dismissal and entitlement to severance pay. On 25 October 2002, the employer requested arbitration of the dispute, which was now indicated by the employee as one concerning a "constructive dismissal converted through agreement into a one year contract". The employer’s representative raised a point in limine that the CCMA did not have jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as described by the employee, as it had not been conciliated.

Summary of Judgement: The Certificate clearly indicates that the dispute, which was conciliated, concerned an "Unfair Dismissal" and was related to "Entitlement to severance pay". When one considers the words "unfair dismissal" and "entitlement to severance pay" together, one would assume that the matter concerns a dismissal for operational requirements. However, on the form of the certificate used there is no option to "tick" that the unfair dismissal relates to a constructive dismissal although the other types of dismissal are indicated. A commissioner is not bound by the manner in which the dispute was described in the certificate of outcome. What is of importance is not how the dispute was described but whether it is materially the same dispute which was conciliated. Found that despite the unfortunate wording of the initial referral, the certificate of outcome describes the dispute as an "unfair dismissal" dispute and the request for arbitration identifies this as an alleged "constructive dismissal" dispute and therefore the CCMA has jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute.

In terms of section 192 of the Labour Relations Act (the LRA), in any proceedings concerning any dismissal, the employee must establish the existence of the dismissal. Once it has been established that the employee was dismissed, there is a duty on the employer to justify the dismissal by proving that there was a fair reason for the dismissal and that it was effected in accordance with a fair procedure. The principles and tests in determining whether a constructive dismissal has taken place are: 1. Did the employee intend to bring an end to the employment relationship? 2. Had the working relationship become so unbearable, objectively speaking that the employee could not fulfill his obligations to work? 3. Did the employer create the intolerable situation? 4. Was the unbearable situation likely to endure for a period that justified termination of the relationship by the employee? 5. Was the termination of the employment contract the only reasonable option open to the employee in the circumstances?

The wording of the resignation letter clearly demonstrates the intent to bring an end to the employment relationship with the expectation of continuing to service the organisation as a contracted service provider after his resignation. In addition, the wording of his letter of resignation does not address any grievances or concerns. The employee was not been able to prove that at the time of his resignation, objectively speaking, the employment relationship was intolerable to such an extent that it could not be "endured" or "put up with". No constructive dismissal took place.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Book Reviews

----------------------------------------------------------------------

# The Fiefdom Syndrome: The Turf Battles That Undermine Careers and Companies—And How to Overcome Them

By Robert Herbold Currency Doubleday, 2004

Territorialism is an insidious condition that can potentially derail performance of individuals and organizations.

In The Fiefdom Syndrome: The Turf Battles That Undermine Careers and Companies—And How to Overcome Them, Robert Herbold examines how this behavior affects creativity. As the former chief operating officer of Microsoft, Herbold provided adult supervision for the software giant known for its innovative spirit and internally competitive culture. So, it is no wonder that his message concentrates on the need to balance creativity and discipline.

Herbold’s solution to the fiefdom phenomenon lies in establishing an organization characterized by a system of efficient and effective processes. Described as "the seven disciplines of the well-run corporation," Herbold stresses creating lean global processes, standard templates, and data; avoiding overconfidence, fragmentation, and bottlenecks; formulating processes for inspection; and continually learning new skills.

Herbold reminds us that processes alone won’t fix a dysfunctional organization plagued by turf wars--people within the organization must also change. To this end, Herbold offers "the six people disciplines"—standard performance appraisal system, united functional departments, personnel rotation, personnel development, performance improvement, and compensation.—Mallory Stark

# The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits

By C. K. Prahalad Wharton School Publishing; Bk&CD-Rom edition, 2004

The world's most exciting, fastest-growing new market? It's where you least expect it: at the bottom of the pyramid. Collectively, the world's billions of poor people have immense entrepreneurial capabilities and buying power. You can learn how to serve them and help millions of the world's poorest people escape poverty.

It is being done-profitably. Whether you're a business leader or an anti-poverty activist, business guru Prahalad shows why you can't afford to ignore "Bottom of the Pyramid" (BOP) markets.

C. K. Prahalad argues that companies must revolutionize how they dobusiness in developing countries if both sides of that economic equation areto prosper. Drawing on a wealth of case studies, his compelling new bookoffers an intriguing blueprint for how to fight poverty with profitability." Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect,Microsoft

"The Bottom of the Pyramid belongs at the top of the reading list forbusiness people, academics, and experts pursuing the elusive goal ofsustainable growth in the developing world. C. K. Prahalad writes withuncommon insight about consumer needs in poor societies andopportunities for the private sector to serve important public purposes whileenhancing its own bottom line. If you are looking for fresh thinking aboutemerging markets, your search is ended. This is the book for you." Madeleine K. Albright, Former U.S. Secretary of State

"Prahalad challenges readers to re-evaluate their pre-conceived notionsabout the commercial opportunities in serving the relatively poor nations ofthe world. The Bottom of the Pyramid highlights the way to commercialsuccess and societal improvement--but only if the developed worldreconceives the way it delivers products and services to the developingworld." Christopher Rodrigues, CEO, Visa International

"An important and insightful work showing persuasively how the privatesector can be put at the center of development, not just as a rhetoricalflourish but as a real engine of jobs and services for the poor." Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme

# Unfair Dismissal
2nd Edition
by Andre Van Niekerk

More than 75% of the over 100 000 disputes referred to the CCMA for conciliation each year, and nearly 90% of disputes referred for arbitration, concern unfair dismissals. This book explains the law with authority, yet in a straightforward way. The author (a lawyer, and a specialist on the topic) answers the following questions:

- Who is an employee?

- What is a dismissal?

- What are the requirements for a fair dismissal?

- What are employers’ and employees’ respective rights and obligations?

# Collective Bargaining Law
by Todd, C

South Africa’s Labour Relations Act of 1995 ("LRA") regulates the relationship between trade unions and employers. This is undoubtedly a valuable reference book for both trade unions and employers:

· it guarantees basic organisational rights to trade unions where they previously had none;

· it simplifies the procedures required for industrial action to be lawful;

· it delineates in what circumstances industrial action is and is not permitted.

South Africa’s collective bargaining framework is complex. In establishing the rules of engagement trade unions, employers and their professional advisors must grapple with the LRA’s provisions at every phase of a complex collective bargaining relationship.

To purchase this book click on: http://www.workinfo.com/mall/siber7.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Unsubscribe & Moving Soon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNSUBSCRIBE: Scroll to the end of the newsletter where you will find a code directly linked to your name. Click on the unsubscribe link. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS NEWSLETTER TO UNSUBSCRIBE.

MOVING SOON: If you are changing your email address soon and would still like to continue receiving this newsletter, please email us your new or temporary email address to ensure that you do not miss out on the next edition.

------------------------------------
FOUR LINE ADS: WORKPLACE
RESOURCES FOR LINE AND HR
------------------------------------

------------------------------------
About the e-Journal/e-Newspaper
------------------------------------
Equity-Skills News & Views is a free bi-monthly newsletter for business owners, Line Managers, and Human Resource Practitioners (who support Line Managers) with the implementation of fair and developmental people management systems and practices.

The style of this e-Newspaper fits between the traditional email newsletters and printed professional trade journals & magazines. Subscribers will be kept up to date with the latest developments in the world of people management, receive handy people management tips, and feedback about labour court rulings that relate to the implementation of the key Labour Acts.

Please add equity skills news & views to your list of approved senders if your Internet provider, or server administrator filters incoming e-mail, to make sure you receive periodic e-mail alerts and this newsletters to which you are subscribed.