SOUTH AFRICA'S most widely distributed & read INDEPENDENT HUMAN RESOURCE PUBLICATION
|
|
| Equity-Skills
News & Views SOUTH AFRICA'S most widely distributed & read INDEPENDENT HUMAN RESOURCE PUBLICATION
|
|
|
|
Equity Skills News & Views In This edition 1. Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management
Work NB: If your Internet service provider (ISP) or server administrator filters incoming e-mail, please add Equity Skills News & Views to your list of approved senders to ensure you receive this e-journal to which you are subscribed. Jeff Sacht: Publisher-editor 'A MUST TO PRINT & READ' >25,000 & still growing! ----------------------------------- PETER DRUCKER ----------------------------------- The Human Capital Institute (HCI) and Equity Skills News & Views was saddened to hear of the passing of Peter Drucker. Professor Drucker has contributed so much to our understanding and has always challenged the business world to be better than we are. He was a sage in the finest sense of the word. His unique concepts - such as the knowledge worker - will continue to be the foundation for the new art and science of human capital management. While saddened, we also celebrate his life and we are dedicated to helping to realize his vision and dreams. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKINFO.COM JOB DESCRIPTION COMPILER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you discouraged at the prospect of writing or updating your organisation’s job descriptions? Use our job description compiler to write professional job descriptions in minutes. To request on onsite demonstration click here:- http://www.workinfo.com/JDComp/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work* By Dick Grote who can be contacted at http://hbswk.hbs.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Editor's note: ----------------- Forced ranking systems direct managers to evaluate their employees' performance against other employees, rather than the more common (and often grade inflated) measure of evaluating performance against pre-determined standards. The result of such a process is often brutally blunt: The top 20 percent of performers are amply rewarded, and the bottom 10 percent are shown the door. Supporters such as former GE Chairman Jack Welch argue that forced ranking creates a true meritocracy, while critics charge that a "rank and yank" approach is unfair to people performing at an acceptable level and creates an unhealthy cult-of-star culture. The new book Forced Ranking: Making Performance Management Work agrees that the procedure is not right for all companies, nor something that should be done every year. But in the right company at the right time, says author Dick Grote, forced ranking creates a more productive workforce where top talent is appreciated, rewarded, and retained. This excerpt lays out the business case for forced ranking. ---------------- The Business Case For Forced Ranking Forced ranking is the antidote to the problems of inflated rating and the failure to differentiate that many organizations have installed to help bring the truth into the performance management process. By implementing a forced ranking procedure, organizations guarantee that managers will differentiate talent. While conventional performance appraisal systems may allow managers to inflate ratings and award Superior ratings to all, a forced ranking system ensures that distribution requirements will be met. Assuming that the system is wisely constructed and effectively executed, a forced ranking system can provide information that conventional performance appraisal systems can't. But just ensuring differentiation, while valuable in itself, isn't the whole reason companies have gone to using forced ranking systems. Creating a forced ranking system forces a company to articulate the criteria that are required for success in the organization. GE, for example, has identified its four Es: the set of criteria it uses to rank its managers and executives: high energy level, the ability to energize others around common goals, the edge to make tough yes/no decisions, and the ability to consistently execute and deliver on promises. These criteria were determined over a period of several years and were the result of serious deliberation. Other companies have settled on different criteria. Some have used nothing more than "Good results, good behavior." Whatever the criteria the organization decides on, the deliberations that senior managers engage in in determining these criteria help them to define and understand what they believe genuinely is important for success in the organization. The discussion of criteria often sparks significant, even boisterous, arguments about exactly what the measures and factors should be. There is value in this process even if no further action is taken. And simply knowing the criteria that senior executives use to assess talent increases the probability that organization members will alter their behavior in order to demonstrate more of the attributes that they now know will lead to success. By Implementing A Forced Ranking Procedure, Organizations Guarantee That Managers Will Differentiate Talent. Another important business outcome that is often unrecognized is forced ranking's ability to provide the organization with useful data on the ability of managers to spot and champion talent. In one company I worked with, one of its criteria for its forced ranking system was the ability to make tough decisions. In the course of briefing the senior executive team, I pointed out that one of the best sources of data would be the way that the vice presidents, their direct reports, went about making the forced ranking decisions during the sessions where they would all be together. Who is able to come up with telling examples of a subordinate's strengths and weaknesses? How well do various managers really understand the major strengths and development needs of their subordinates? A forced ranking procedure forces managers to think in far greater depth about the quality of talent in their unit than conventional performance appraisal systems typically require, and their ability to describe and verbalize their assessments provides a good indicator of a critical aspect of their leadership ability. Another important reason for proceeding with a forced ranking procedure flows from the frustrations surrounding the conventional performance appraisal systems in many organizations, since forced ranking can provide an independent verification of performance appraisal data. If there are significant variations in the talent data provided by the performance appraisal system and the data provided by the forced ranking process, that conflict is worth delving in to. In addition, forced ranking can provide something of great value that even the best performance appraisal systems can't—accurate cross-department comparisons. As larger groups are evaluated, and with criteria that can be applied equally across a variety of jobs, a forced ranking process may permit more accurate cross-department comparisons. The business environment today is making the rationale for developing forced ranking procedures more important than it has been for the past few years. After a several-year period of slower growth marked by major layoffs in several sectors of the economy, the "war for talent" seems to be heating up again. The impetus for identifying and actively acting to retain top talent is more important in an economy that now allows that top talent greater employment options than it has had for several years. Can Forced Ranking Actually Improve The Quality Of The Workforce? Finally, the results of a major research project published in the First Quarter 2005 issue of the academic journal Personnel Psychology appear to answer in the affirmative the question of whether a forced ranking process will actually improve the overall quality of a workforce. An objection that has always been raised to forced ranking is that one of its fundamental principles is flawed—it is simply not possible to continually improve the overall potential of a workforce by systematically removing the bottom 10 percent every year and replacing them with better employees from the available applicant pool. Professor Steven E. Scullen and his colleagues constructed a complex and sophisticated mathematical simulation of a multicompany, multiyear forced ranking process that they labeled "FDRS." FDRS is their acronym for a forced ranking system that they referred to as a "forced distribution rating system." For clarity's sake, I will use the term forced ranking for their FDRS acronym in quoting from their study. In their model, one hundred companies of one hundred employees each over a thirty-year period identified the bottom 10 percent of their workforce every year, fired them, and then replaced them with the best available candidates from the applicant pool. In their simulation they controlled for the impact of voluntary turnover, the quality of the applicant pool, and the validity and reliability of the ranking assessments that were made. The basic question they asked was this: "Is it reasonable to expect that an organization would be able to improve the performance potential of its workforce by firing the workers judged to be performing most poorly and replacing them with its most promising applicants? If so, how much gain might be expected, and how quickly might that gain be achieved?" Their answer: "Results suggest that a forced ranking system could lead to noticeable improvement in workforce potential, that most of the improvement should be expected to occur over the first several years, and that improvement is largely a function of the percentage of workers to be fired and the level of voluntary turnover." They did not mince words in stating that the basic hypothesis underlying the forced ranking, rank-and-yank methodology is solid: "Results showed that a forced ranking system can improve workforce potential, in the sense that, on average, lower-potential workers can be identified and replaced by workers with higher potential." I find that most organizations are better served by implementing a forced ranking system as a short-term initiative. They discovered that firing more poor performers provided greater benefit to the organization than releasing a smaller number: "In each case, however, results for 10 percent fired were superior to those for 5 percent fired." While they examined the relative importance of improving selection procedures and enhancing the quality of applicant pools in increasing the overall effectiveness of the workforce, they discovered that the best results were produced by getting rid of poorer performers: "It is interesting, however, that firing poor (i.e., low-ranked) performers was the quickest route to improvement, and that reducing voluntary turnover soon became important as well." Many critics of forced ranking have acknowledged that while the procedure may in fact improve the overall quality of a company's workforce, it may do so at a steep price, producing adverse consequences in such areas as employee morale, teamwork and collaboration, the unwillingness of applicants to sign on with an employer who uses a forced ranking process, and shareholder perceptions. In their discussion of their findings, the researchers examined the possible effects of implementing a forced ranking procedure on all of these areas. They found that the potential problems were in every case balanced by equally compelling benefits. For example, while they acknowledged that there could be a detrimental effect on morale if retained employees saw no compelling differences between employees who were terminated and those who were not, or if unjust treatment of coworkers was observed, they also noted, "It is not clear, however, that employees in general would see a forced ranking system in that negative light. In fact, many employees might applaud the organization's decision to eliminate underperformers." Concerning teamwork, they commented, "As with employee morale, however, it could be argued that the effects on teamwork and collaboration might actually be positive." Discussing the effects of installing a forced ranking system on the perceptions of the labor market, they noted that job seekers develop beliefs about an organization's culture while they are seeking employment. If an employment candidate becomes aware that an employer uses a forced ranking system and feels that the culture might therefore be too stressful or risky, the applicant might eliminate that company from consideration, causing the possible loss of some high-potential applicants. "It is certainly possible, however, that other high-quality applicants would see such a system as one where their contributions would be recognized and rewarded. These people would be eager to work in this type of environment. Thus, it is possible that a forced ranking system would improve the overall quality of an organization's applicant pools." Finally, they considered the impact on shareholder perceptions. While acknowledging that shareholders might have reservations about the company's use of a forced ranking system, because of potential lawsuits or other negative consequences, "investors might see the implementation of a forced ranking system as a clear signal that management is committed to accountability and to operating at an efficient staffing level. Perceptions of this sort should have a positive effect on stock prices." Finally, for many years I have argued that for most companies, forced ranking systems should be used for only a few years and then, once the obvious and immediate benefits have been achieved, replaced with other talent management initiatives. While some companies have been successful in using their forced ranking system for decades, I find that most organizations are better served by implementing a forced ranking system as a short-term initiative. Scullen and his fellow researchers confirm that advice. Early in their article they lay out clearly the basic problem of using forced ranking on an ongoing basis: "Despite the allure of having a continually improving workforce, we argue that each time a company improves its workforce by replacing an employee with a new hire, it becomes more difficult to do so again. That is, the better the workforce is, the more difficult it must be to hire applicants who are superior to the current employees who would be fired."10 Their mathematical simulation demonstrated that the greatest benefits came in the first 3.5 to 4.5 years after initiating a forced ranking system. They discovered that organizations got their best results immediately, in the first few years after implementing a forced ranking system: "The other outcome variable of interest is the rate at which workforce potential improved after the implementation of the forced ranking system. It is clear . . . that the bulk of the improvement in all scenarios was achieved during the first several years." Their summary: "Results suggest that a forced ranking system of the type we simulated could improve the performance potential of the typical organization's workforce and that the great majority of improvement should be expected to occur during the first several years." * Reprinted under license agreement from Working Konowledge ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. How Boards Can Create High Performance* By Dr John Roberts who can be contacted at www.management-issues.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Good financial results and compliance with corporate governance codes do not tell the full story. Now new research from the Corporate Research Forum/Performance & Reward Centre has identified some key characteristics of the high-performing board. When I look at a company's performance from a distance – say through the eyes of a fund manager – what can I see? Well I can see the financial results, and I can see the historical trends in these results. I can do some projections of future results if current trends continue. I can compare these with other companies in the same sector to gauge relative performance. I can also attend company presentations, and listen to market opinion. If I am sufficiently influential I can also get to meet the chief executive and finance director to check out the assumptions of my modelling, talk to them about the strategy of the business and take a view on their personalities and relationship, and whether I think they are credible. Additionally, for UK listed companies, the Combined Code now exists as a benchmark of the sort of composition that should ensure proper oversight. Good standards of corporate governance allow me to trust in the board's ability to monitor executives and to trust the reported financials. What shakes my confidence are shocks and surprises, since these call into question both performance and the quality of data. These concerns are familiar. The measures referred to can be valuable. But even with the best reporting there remains a great deal that I cannot see. What about the collective skills, teamwork and relationships that bind a board and an organisation together and enable it to perform? As an employee, I may know little about what the board actually doesIt is not only the fund manager who lacks information. As an employee, I may know little about what the board actually does. If I read in the newspaper about the sizeable pay packages awarded, but I know that not every part of the business is thriving, I may seek reassurance that the leadership of the company has a coherent strategy and the capability to deliver. Lastly, if I am a prospective or new board member I would like to possess meaningful knowledge about the nature of the role I am stepping up to. What are the core duties and requisite attributes of the board member, of the chairman? How do the executive and non-executive members work together? How do I prepare myself for this promotion? What do I actually need to do on a day-to-day basis? I have just completed some research, with business author and former board director Don Young, on behalf of the Corporate Research Forum and the Performance & Reward Centre. We interviewed in depth nearly 40 high-performing board members to discover more about how they work in practice; what is effective – and what is not. What we found was both illuminating and disturbing. Some aspects of board performance are strong; but where it is weak this is almost entirely hidden from the outside world. What's more, some of the pressures from investors and regulators can tie board members up and not enable them to pay enough attention to developing the business. Our research is an attempt to identify key attributes of a board, with a particular focus on the ways in which a board can help to create high performance. Our 'inside' story has, we feel, yielded rich narrative detail about the style of chairmanship, leadership and teamwork that are effective. We uncovered considerable difference between some boards and others. As details emerged, they began to divide into two broad camps that are difficult if not impossible to identify from the outside using traditional indicators. Firstly, there is the company that is led by the latest demands from investors, that often makes dramatic announcements in response to pressure – such as a major sacking or an acquisition. These we call 'investor-driven' companies and have a tendency to be more unstable and lower performing. The other camp consists of companies where the board develops a longer-term perspective of the company's fortune and where the demands of investors are noted, but do not become the driving force. Their performance is more stable and the returns are stronger. These we call 'strategy-led' boards. Our findings reveal much detail on the workings of the high-performing, 'strategy-led' board. We hope that they will help corporate board members increase their effectiveness, and help inform investors and other parties of some key characteristics that generate organisational success. * Reprinted by permission of Management Issues ------------------------------------ IN-COMPANY WORKSHOP: EMPLOYMENT EQUITY COMMITTEE TRAINING ------------------------------------ An Intensive 2-Day In-Company programme For ELECTED EMPLOYMENT EQUITY (EE) MEMBERS & CHAIRPERSON To Competently & Confidently Represent Co-Workers. Contact Jeff Sacht to request a workshop flyer and to arrange an in-company workshop customised to your requirements. Facilitation is charged on a realistic daily rate and not a per person cost. Also available as a web download for self-delivery/in-house use under license agreement. Contact jeffs@worldonline.co.za ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Building Your Change Strategy: How To Ensure Your Effort Stays On Track By by Linda Ackerman Anderson and Dean Anderson who can be contacted at www.beingfirst.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction No executive in their right mind would compete in the marketplace without a clear business strategy, yet many undergo multi-million dollar change efforts without a clear change strategy. No wonder so many change efforts fail to produce their expected ROI. While your business strategy determines what in your organization needs to change, your change strategy clarifies how you will make those changes happen. Building an effective change strategy will accelerate your change and reduce its cost. It will increase your effort’s efficiency, remove unnecessary or redundant activities, and engage your people optimally. In this article, we will identify the three key aspects of a comprehensive change strategy and the ten core elements you will need to consider in developing your own. Overview of the Components Change strategies address three general topics about your change: its content, people and process. Content refers to what about your organization needs to change – strategy, structure, systems, technology, business processes, products, services or culture. Content describes the “business solution” being designed and implemented, and typically gets the most leadership attention. The people component of your change strategy includes people’s emotional reactions to the change, how to address the changes in mindset, behavior and culture that your future state requires, how to engage your people in design and implementation, and how to ensure commitment and capacity to change. Your people strategies are as important as the content of your change. Without your people being ready, willing and able to make the change, your business solutions will never get implemented successfully. Most change efforts fail because of lack of attention or skill applied to the people dynamics. Often, leaders delegate these issues to the Human Resource Department, who deals with them separately from the content changes. This approach does not work! Attending to the people dynamics should be done as an integrated component of the design and implementation of your content. The process component of your change strategy sketches out your roadmap to get you from where you are today to where you need to be to achieve your results from change. The process sets your change up for success, moves you through design of sound solutions, testing and planning of those solutions, implementation, all the way through to full realization…attending to all of the people and cultural issues along the way. The key to success is consciously designing your change process to handle all the content and people issues together as one effort. Three Elements of a Comprehensive Change Strategy There are ten core elements of change strategy. Not every change requires attention to all ten, so tailor them to the type and magnitude of your change effort. As you consider the list, notice that they address content, people and process. Values and Guiding Principles Change is all about taking a good idea or new direction and making it real. All change proceeds from “concept to pragmatics” becoming more and more tangible along the way. Your values and guiding principles are the essence of your new direction that must form the foundation of the tangible future state you are trying to create. This element makes values and guiding principles conscious and explicit in how you design and lead your change. Your change process must reflect and embody the values and principles of the future you are creating or people will not believe the change is real. In other words, you must model the future in the way in which you lead and carry out your change effort. As you move through your change process, you must ensure that your values and principles have tangible influence on your design requirements, the way in which you engage people, how you communicate, how you design implementation, etc. Make them overt in your change strategy, and keep them “visible” throughout your change. Change Governance There are four actions to determine how you will govern your change: 1. Identify clear change leadership roles 2. Create a recognizable change governance structure to oversee the effort 3. Clarify how change-related decisions will be made 4. Clarify how the change structure will interface with your ongoing operations These four actions form the basis of your overall change infrastructure. When communicated, they demonstrate to your organization the importance of the change and that you are leading it with clear roles and authority. As you proceed through your change, add to your change infrastructure as needed. Include any temporary teams, systems, course correction vehicles, or technology you will use to support your initiative. Identification of Change Initiatives and How They Integrate into One Unified Change This element translates the scope of your change into actual initiatives that address your organizational and technical changes as well as your required human and cultural changes. Integrate these into one unified “theme” for your overall effort, which will demonstrate to your organization how all initiatives are aligned to deliver the collective results of your change. This element will help simplify the apparent magnitude and complexity of your change, and clarify confusing, competing or unrelated change work. Fit and Priority of Your Initiative among All Other Changes Happening in the Organization Even if your overall change is enterprise-wide, other large changes are likely also occurring in the organization. This element clarifies where your effort fits among all of the other organizational priorities. Ideally, the level of priority given to your effort by your sponsors will match the degree of visibility and resources allocated to it. Your intent with this element is to clarify how your change effort fits within and supports your organization’s business strategy requirements. Multiple Project Integration Strategy Where there is obvious interdependence or overlap among any of the sub-initiatives within your overall effort, or interdependence among your effort and others occurring in the organization, you need an integration strategy that can surface, address and streamline the work across efforts or regions. This element creates a Multiple Project Integration strategy to overtly look for redundancy, competition or gaps among changes and constructively align them to share resources, reduce costs, increase efficiencies and accelerate the pace of your changes. Bold Actions If your changes are significant or require your currently “successful” organization to alter course, you may need to do something radical to wake people up to the seriousness or magnitude of the new direction. Bold actions are highly visible, “outside the norm” moves that dramatically demonstrate that “things are going to be very different around here.” It is powerful for senior leaders to identify bold actions, and equally important for them to carry them out to have the intended impact. Examples include selling off a business line, removing a whole layer of the organization, or reallocating significant resources. Bold actions should be a calculated part of your change strategy. Communications and Engagement Transformational change cannot succeed without significant engagement of stakeholders and frequent, multi-directional communications (up, down and across the hierarchy). Stakeholders must be engaged early in understanding the case for change, vision and direction. They must be part of inputting to the design requirements and actual design of the change, not just brought in downstream during implementation. Most normal, top-down corporate communication channels are inadequate for complex change. Change communications require interaction, exploration, and a high level of engagement to ensure that the changes and their implications are felt and understood. Your communication plan must take the human dynamics of change into account from the beginning, and at every step of the way. Because engagement and communications are such central aspects of people dynamics, both must be included in your overall change strategy. Acceleration Strategies Everyone wants change to go faster, but change takes the time it takes. And, there are ways to accelerate it. Be cautious here, however; pushing change beyond its pace actually makes it go slower. This is a very common problem in most change efforts. Examples of effective acceleration strategies include large group engagement meetings to handle visioning, design or impact analysis; putting special teams together to tackle key issues full time; running key aspects of the change in “parallel;” integrating activities with other change efforts; or, setting up conditions for success at the beginning. Available/Required Resources Your change strategy should determine a high-level “guesstimate” of the types and magnitude of the resources you will need to carry it out. Resources may include capital assets, people, expertise, technology, support, and time. Recall that the allocation of major resources can be a bold action as well as a critical message about the importance of the change. Also, identify how you will renegotiate your resource needs when you recognize variations from your original estimates. Change Process Roadmap with Milestones and General Timeline Create a macro plan that outlines the phases and milestone events for carrying out your change effort. This is a high-level roadmap, not your detailed implementation plan. As part of your change strategy, it should communicate how you will roll out the change and at what pace. It should include your critical actions, events, announcements, decisions, and benchmarks. Summary Deciding each of these elements of your change strategy will inevitably cause critical discussions among your change leaders and executives. These conversations, well facilitated, can produce essential clarity, even if they surface confusions or differences along the way. Clarifying these elements – for your executives and stakeholders in the change – will greatly accelerate your effort and reduce its costs. When completed, compile these elements into a summary document that can be communicated to your organization. Use it to demonstrate that the leaders of the change have thought through the effort, have a comprehensive strategy, and are committed to its success. ------------------------------------ IN-COMPANY WORKSHOP: MANAGING FOR DIVERSITY (NOW UPDATED & ENLARGED) ------------------------------------ An Intensive and Practical 2- DAY MANAGEMENT/ SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP to develop insight and self-knowledge about intercultural competence and enhance your capacity to work with a diverse workforce. Contact Jeff Sacht to request a workshop flyer and to arrange an in-company workshop customised to your requirements. Facilitation is charged on a realistic daily rate and not a per person cost. Also available as a web download for self-delivery/in-house use under license agreement. Contact jeffs@worldonline.co.za ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. When It Comes To Scoring, Company Size Will Count By By Paul Janisch who can be contacted at www.caird.co.za ---------------------------------------------------------------------- November 1 was an exciting day for all companies in South Africa - it was the first definite indication of what is expected from each company when it comes to the equity and executive management aspects of Black Economic Empowerment (codes 100 and 200). We all now know that BEE is made up of seven codes and goes much further than equity and management. The remaining codes have yet to be announced, but the published codes and accompanying documentation do leave us with a few hints on what we can expect from the remaining codes. Codes 100 and 200 recognised that there are three types of enterprises in South Africa: >> broad-based black empowerment contributors, >> micro enterprises, and >> qualifying small enterprises (SMEs). Each of these enterprises are to play a significant role in the future of BEE and the South African economy. The draft of the codes in November 2004 announced a separate code would be established for multinationals. Reports over the last year revealed that multinationals were keen to get involved in building up a BEE profile, but it was the equity aspect that was causing the greatest problem. Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) have been given their own code (Code 1000). Whether the definition of an SME will comply with the National Small Business Act of 1996 is yet to seen, but it does seem clear that micro enterprises will be exempt from developing any form of a BEE profile. Micro enterprises are likely to be identified by their annual turnover or employee count and if they fall below a certain threshold, they will be defined as micro. Human resource development will be discussed in Code 300 (Employment Equity) and Code 400 (Skills Development). The levels of black employees in each organisation will be measured against the stipulations of the Employment Equity Act. The Act does provide a vehicle for each company to register their employment equity targets with the Department of Labour, but it is still to be seen as to whether this will be required in terms of Code 300. Skills Development (Code 400) will be measured on the extent to which an employer implements initiatives that promote the development of the competencies of black employees. It is likely that this will be as a percentage of total training spend. Preferential procurement (Code 500) and Enterprise Development (Code 600) make up indirect empowerment. The preferential procurement aspect will be calculated by the spend from all three types of enterprises that were mentioned earlier. This means that companies that only focus on their main suppliers will not be awarded the maximum number of points for this section. Enterprise development quantifies a company's activities in assisting and accelerating the development of other enterprises. The residual element (Code 700) is also known as corporate social investment or CSI. CSI is most often regarded as a charitable contribution to a cause. Whilst there are many causes that require assistance, the November 2005 documents detail two types of contributions: social development contributions, and contributions that directly facilitate access to the economy for black people The Department of Trade and Industry recognised that the rating process could become a huge quagmire that might slow down the pace of the economy. The new codes state that only companies that are larger than SMEs will require an official rating certificate. This means that SMEs that are larger than micro enterprises will have to rate themselves. Scorecards will become a lot more prevalent within the next twelve months. In the interim companies can choose to measure their BEE status using either narrow-based measurement - which focuses only on equity and management - and broad-based, which takes all aspects of empowerment into account. It is a good idea for those companies that have not fulfilled the narrow-based criteria to build up a scorecard on broad-based principles. This can still be done in an outline format even though all the codes have not been published. Paul Janisch is the CEO of Caird Consulting (www.caird.co.za). They have developed EconoScorecard - a PC-based self-rating tool. Janisch can be contacted on 011-483-1190 or info@caird.co.za ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Book Reviews: Bullies, Tyrants And Impossible People: How To Beat Them Without Joining ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Bullies, Tyrants and Impossible People: How to Beat Them Without Joining Them To buy this book click on: http://www.kalahari.net/e-trader/referral.asp?toolbar=mweb&linkid=5&partnerid=293&sku=28012899 By Ronald M. Shapiro and Mark A. Jankowski with James Dale, Crown Business, 2005 This is a handy guide for anyone who has to contend with difficult people, whether that means a boss who is impossible to please or a salesperson who hasn’t a clue about appropriate customer service. The book’s strategy, called the “N.I.C.E.” approach, might help you make headway in a variety of circumstances, both personal and professional, that seem intractable. While most of us would rather avoid “difficult, angry, emotional, demanding, close-minded, tyrannical, illogical, and rude” individuals, the reality is that sometimes we must engage with them. The N.I.C.E. system breaks down into N—neutralize emotions, I—identify type, C—control the encounter, and E—explore options. It sounds easy, but many situations are so complex that the advice here may have only limited applicability. As the authors acknowledge, emotions defy logic; types are difficult to precisely identify; creative options can be elusive; and messy resolutions are often difficult to avoid. It’s helpful that the authors illustrate each aspect of N.I.C.E. with examples from their own negotiation experience. To explain the importance of “neutralizing emotions,” for instance, Shapiro describes a case he lost early in his career, involving housing discrimination in Baltimore. He shows how his emotions took over when he was up against a tough judge in the trial; ultimately Shapiro lost. If he had taken a step back and handled the judge’s comments with more objectivity, he might have prevailed on behalf of his client. Shapiro and Jankowski are attorneys and experienced negotiators whose daily work involves conflict resolution. Shapiro settled a strike by a symphony orchestra and helped facilitate the end of Major League Baseball’s most recent labor deadlock. Jankowski has taught negotiation programs at Johns Hopkins University and the Wharton School, and consulted for MBNA America, Gillette, and Black and Decker. The simplicity of their four-step approach is appealing. However, we would suggest proceeding with caution, given the volatility of relationships with difficult people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Downloads: On the Line: the Manager’s Role in Performance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The challenge presented by effective and strategic performance management has ignited intense interest and debate. Beyond performance reviews, performance management systems and processes are being integrated with hiring, retention, learning, compensation and career transitions initiatives. For performance management solutions to fulfill their potential, they must inform the other critical components of strategic talent management. Strategic and integrated performance management not only drives effective measurement, it aligns hiring and retention efforts with corporate objectives and focuses those efforts where they will produce the greatest returns. Traditionally, HR spends considerable time trying to improve (and enforce) performance management systems. But if performance in general is considered, it is the line manager, who is fundamentally accountable for the performance of the team. With the availability of technology-driven performance management processes, line managers and HR face a typical predicament. Line managers have conventionally focused on day-to-day business processes geared to producing business results, whereas HR devises programs to enhance and measure such processes. Given this delineation of organizational roles, it is almost always the case that HR chooses and introduces performance management programs and technology and then expects line managers to embrace them. Whether it is paper and spreadsheet driven or assisted by sophisticated web technology, performance management is only effective when line managers see value in the systems in use. Given the prevalence of broken and dysfunctional performance management processes in organizations, combined with the promise of new technologies designed to ease the pain of performance reviews and performance management in general, the Human Capital Institute assembled an expert panel to delve into this topic. Our intent was to shed some light on best practices and new ideas for effective performance management, particularly through better HR, line manager relationships. WHAT DO LINE MANAGERS THINK THEY SHOULD DO IN MANAGING PERFORMANCE? Download this Executive Briefing at: http://www.workinfo.com/free/downloads/180.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Case-Law & Legislation Review: By Gary Watkins who can be contacted at www.caselaw.co.za ; www.workinfo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MOSSAWU obo M. Shai vs. Amalgamated Beverage Industries Soft Drink Division of SAB Ltd Case No: GA 11687-03 Award Date: 17 June 2005 Jurisdiction: CCMA: Johannesburg Commissioner: N Johnston # SUBJECT: Practice and Procedure Costs ISSUE: The employee was charged with dishonesty and unauthorised consumption of the company’s product. He was clearly aware of the rule, as it had been communicated widely to staff and the employer applied the rule consistently. The employee was notified of the hearing and given time to prepare, there was no truth in his assertion in his referral form that no procedures were followed. His intention was to wilfully misrepresent the facts in order to mislead the commission. His referral was frivolous and vexatious and the trade union was ordered to pay the costs of the arbitration. SUMMARY OF FACTS: The employee was employed on 16 November 1998 as a delivery driver, and was dismissed on 26 February 2003. He was charged with dishonesty and unauthorised consumption of the company’s product. A hearing was held on 6 February 2003 where he was found guilty and the sanction of dismissal imposed. The evidence against the employee consisted of camera footage which showed him removing a pallet of energy drink and taking it behind the stack. 22 seconds later he came out empty handed. It was then established that 1 tin of the drink in question was missing. On 3 February 2003 the employee received notification to attend a disciplinary hearing and he was notified of his rights in this regard. The hearing was then held on 6 February 2003. The employee was represented by 2 shop stewards from the trade union FAWU, one of whom was the chairperson of the shop stewards council. He was present throughout the hearing and affirmed that the minutes of the hearing were a true and accurate reflection of what occurred. He submitted closing arguments in writing which were signed by him and the 2 shop stewards. In this document he maintained that he did not drink the product. After being found guilty, the employee then submitted a document outlining his arguments in mitigation of sanction. This was signed by him and both his representatives, and in it he admits drinking the product and promises that he will not do so again. The employee denied that he admitted to this, saying that he did not read the document before he signed it. At a previous arbitration where a default award was issued, the employee denied that any procedure was followed before he was dismissed. SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT: The employee admitted, in a signed statement to having consumed the product. His later protestations that he did not read the document before signing it were not credible. The rule was clearly reasonable, particularly as the company provided more than adequate supplies of cool drinks for employees, both for consumption while on duty as well as for their families. The employee was aware of this rule, but nonetheless broke a pack in the warehouse and drank it. The employee was clearly aware of the rule, as it had been communicated widely to staff. It appears that the employer applied the rule consistently, as evinced by the references to several other CCMA awards relating to dismissal for the same reason. During the arbitration process the employee contradicted his own prior sworn testimony, given both at the disciplinary hearing and the default arbitration. Accordingly, the Commissioner found that the dismissal was substantively fair. As to the procedural fairness, the employee attempted to explain away his untruthful claims that no hearing had taken place by alleging the previous Commissioner had fabricated this. This version was rejected and the Commissioner that there was not truth in any of the allegations of procedural unfairness as contained in the referral. Accordingly, the referral was frivolous and vexatious and in finding that the dismissal was also procedurally fair, the Union as ordered to pay the costs of the arbitration. ------------------------------------ THE IR PROTECTOR ------------------------------------ Is your company spending valuable time and resources handling disciplinary issues? Does your business contribute to the 130 000 cases at the CCMA each year? Is your share of the R14 000 000 000 in South African industrial relations costs affecting profitability? Take the next logical step in people management and protect your organisation. To find out more about “The IR Protector” visit www.workinfo.com/sponsors/irprotect.thm Brought to you by Workinfo.com and Camargue, Hollard’s labour dispute specialists. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. 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. ------------------------------------ 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 newsletter to which you are subscribed. ------------------------------------ Opinions expressed by contributors DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT the standpoint of the publisher-editor of Equity-Skills News & Views. Information published here is for general information, and is not intended as legal advice. The authors, editors, and publishers do not accept responsibility for any act, omission, loss, or damage occasioned by any reliance upon the contents hereof. This message is sent in compliance with the ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONS ACT. 2002, Act No. 25, 2002 [South Africa] passed on 20 May 2003. Sender: Jeff Sacht URL: www.equityskillsweb.com E-mail: jeffs@worldonline.co.za Telephone: +27 011 485 4943 Facsimile +27 011 485 4943 Publisher-Editor: Equity-Skills News & Views 'A MUST TO PRINT & READ' ------------------------------------ Copyright (c) 2004 Registered electronic newspaper: 1SSN 1684-5714 |
| © 2002 Equity Skills New & Views. All Rights Reserved. ISSN 1684-5714 |