Articles & Case Studies

Gen Y exposes poor level of management

Somebody has to give a wakeup call to management about the Generation Y thing.  Yes it is true that Gen Y’s are self obsessed gimme gimme gimme. But I’d argue so are those judging them. What then is the real problem?

I believe the real problem lies with the quality of management.  Managing people, no matter if they are Gen Y or the aging work force, is no different.  Providing clear and transparent frameworks for managing an employment relationship is the key. Knowing how to communicate without offending people is how you turn the key.

Suggesting that Gen Y’s need to be managed differently is incorrect.  It propagates the blame game. It says that I know better than you do and Gen Y’s, no more than anyone else, know that that isn’t true.

The Gen Y issue has been created because Gen Y’s have been raised in a more transparent environment where human rights have been honoured more than ever before. They don’t tolerate having their worthiness questioned and if it is, they’ll respond almost immediately to assert their own worthiness.

It is wise to remember that the manager pointing a finger at the Gen Y, almost certainly has 3 of their own fingers pointing right back at them self.

Does this mean that Gen Y’s are different or does it mean that they believe in their own right to be acknowledged and their own belief that they are equal?  By observing behaviour for over 25 years as a human resource professional,  I believe that Gen Y’s have done nothing more than expose a lack of competence in the current quality of management.  I would argue that the poor quality of management has been exposed by a more demanding generation seeking transparency and fairness.

To instigate regimes and agenda’s for managers to deal with Gen Y’s is like putting a plaster on a pimple.  It hides the pimple, but the real cause of the problem is not addressed. The real cause of the problem is that the current quality of management and that is reflective of the past quality of the individual managers’ previous managers’.  Monkey see monkey do.

People are not taught how to manage without a hidden agenda and it’s time for managers to wake up and recognise that their fear of being exposed as a fraud. Any real manager should seek new learning opportunities to manage without a hidden agenda.  This will make managing all people, including Gen Y’s fulfilling and worthwhile. After all, if you think managing Gen Y’s is a challenge, wait for their children!

Walking the talk in performance management

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ARE ABOUT STRUCTURE, TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRENESS...

behaviour (US behavior) ● n.  The way in which someone or something behaves.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

There are perhaps many ways in which performance management processes are conducted in an organisation.  Some of the most inappropriate reasons are:

• A perceived importance of this obligation to employees
• Justification for salaries/wages reviews
• To be "seen" to be doing the "right thing"

When reviewing performances with this as the primary intention is the cause for most of the injustices in an employment relationship, as well as the unseen reason many employment relationships fail.

I have observed that human beings will not forget someone who has questioned their worthiness, in fact, they rarely forgive them for doing it.

Why?  Because, what is important in the performance management process is what is important!  So what is important?  The only thing important in the performance management process is the alignment of individual employees to their job roles and that means (just so we have it clear) - the alignment of any job role to their supervisor's job role, the supervisor's alignment of their job role to their manager's job role, the manager's job role alignment to the appropriate Director's portfolio of responsibilities, and last but by no means least, the Director's Job Role (portfolio of responsibilities) alignment to the outcomes desired in the organisation's current business plan.

Is there something missing here?  You're damn right there is!  What is it?  It is an individual persons opinion.  No emotional connection to anything, there is an absence of personal agendas.

Too often in the performance management process I have witnessed people thinking, actually truly believing, they are their job!  Worse than that, I have many times observed people actually believing they are the organisation!  Go figure?

So what is this phenomena and why is it so prevalent? The phenomenon exists because people have an emotional connection to their jobs through an indoctrinated desire (for fear of being wrong) to be right.  What is important to the organisation goes out the window and individual agenda's – who did what to whom prevails.

So to assist all those involved in the process from being caught in this trap, it is necessary for organisations interested in best practice human resource strategies, to create a solid foundation that addresses behaviour in the performance management process.

My belief is that there are three important steps to creating a best practice performance management system.

For something to be implemented at a structural level of the business it needs to have top down buy in and that requires progressive management with a commitment to focus on what is important.  So what does that mean?  Quite simply, that the first person required to accept that being right isn't what is most important, is the Board of Directors, the CEO/MD.  Because lets be honest here, if you were doing it the best way you could, you wouldn't be looking for a better way.

Too many failed performance management systems are designed and implemented by transactional business managers that are tasked with reviewing their employees performance with a focus on tasks (what they do, as opposed to how they did it).

Consider that it is actually impossible for someone to be wrong. That they made the best decision that they could make based on the information that was available to them.  That in fact, when wrong they perhaps are instead wiser, larger, more expanded and in fact more knowledgeable...

A wise executive knows this secret and embraces the opportunity to become wiser, more knowledgeable and ultimately cleverer.

Monkey see, monkey do...

In my next article in this series, we will discuss the ramifications of and contingencies to taking the courageous steps to implement change at the structural level of an organisation for a performance management process.

WHY ARE THE FOUNDATIONS FOR A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPORTANT?

Too often, the performance management processes in an organisation are fraught with emotions, individual wants and desires. Managers have to get a job done and employees want approval or more money.  At worst, they are happy just keep their jobs - or to scrap it out with you!  We haven't even considered the variety of management agendas that also creep in.

It's easy to identify a number of economic and risk management reasons for getting the foundations of a performance management process right.  In my last article we spoke of continuous improvement that relates to a standard theory and practice for organisational managers.

By creating a standard theory and practice for managers you'll also improve the validity of all assessment processes (including succession planning, recruitment, selection for promotion, and so on) and create a foundation for an objective performance management process that will protect your core business, your clients' core business and also provide a distinctive competitive advantage.

Consider the reality that salary paid during the tenure of employment is only one component of the overall cost when employees do not perform to expectations.  Whether this is an existing employee; one who is promoted into a role proving not to be entirely suited; or a new recruit.  There is so much more involved in terms of real cost. This can involve any or all of the following:

Replacement can then involve:

To name but a few.

According to one study, unsurprisingly, different management methods can have varying amounts of effectiveness when you are conducting assessments.  The example relates to the likelihood of a person remaining and being productive in a role 12 months after appointment using each these selection processes:

While all have some validity, unless they can be applied in a structured way, through trial and error, each individual manager usually uses what works for them.  Although on-the-job assessment comprises around 80% in the same study, I'd suggest that the same validities above would apply in performance management... So the point here is that the results depend on the manager.

While some organisations have followed the technological path to performance improvement - for example, the concepts of 'total quality management' (TQM), 'just in time' (JIT) and information technology -improvements have been limited to these system improvements.  These organisations, to the greater part, appear to have concentrated on areas showing the greatest tangible return in performance improvement.  However, improvements to the systems that relate to human resource management tend to have stopped short.

More recently, however, organisations have started to question the overall effectiveness of this focus.  Concepts in human resources management have now emerged, whereby employees at all levels are seen as a strategic resource - one on which the success of the organisation depends.

The benefits of deciding on a consistent theory and practice for your managers can be likened to the TQM and JIT concepts adopted by the manufacturing industries.  Not so many years ago there was a general acceptance of a 40% scrap or rework rate on finished goods.  TQM and JIT took this from 60% to 90% quality rate in a space of two to three years and, by making the same effort again, this figure rose to 94%, and again to 95%.

For demonstration sake, assume that the average NZ organisation currently only taps a maximum of 30% of the potential of their human resources.  The same dramatic improvements can be made on the human resources side in any organisation.

According to Senge, contemporary society focuses predominantly on events, less so in patterns of behaviour, and very rarely on systemic structure.

What does that mean? Well simply put, if an employee does something wrong, chances are I'm going to be really peeved if he stuffs up a second time.  So annoyed, in fact, that I am not even the slightest bit interested in what is happening in his head that made him repeat what he just did.  And because I'm so busy fixing up the mistakes he has caused, not only do I not have the time to consider structural systems - it is far more important that we fix it up yesterday's errors - than to meet other demands on my time.  And on and on, the ripples spread.

Bearing that in mind, it is important that any performance management system that incorporates a continuous improvement objective reverses this trend and focuses the organisation's attention on systemic structure.  Senge believes this is because event explanations (who did what to whom) doom their holders to a reactive stance toward change; pattern-of-behaviour explanations are limited to identifying long-term trends and assessing their implications - they suggest how, over time, we can respond to shifting conditions (adaptive learning); whereby structural explanations are the most powerful - only they address the underlying causes of behaviour at a level such that patterns of behaviour can be changed (generative learning).

Now, that may all be gobbledygook to some people, so I'll explain it further.

It is important that any performance management system (that is, one designed to foster continuous improvement) be designed so that people can modify their own behaviour.  This is because individuals are the only people who can successfully modify and maintain any modified behaviour (you can't tell me what to do!).

Therefore, a performance management process that fosters continuous improvement should be a generative learning tool (if we are to agree on an intellectualisation) so that it supports the whole process.  We don't want that house falling over now, do we!

One of the simplest ways to do this is to create a uniformed standard and focus on the structure of the performance management process and couple this with a philosophical methodology that is validated.  Ask yourself: What theory and practice are my managers to follow when undertaking performance management-related tasks?  How will they communicate with our people?  Is that aligned to grow/maintain/create valid data regarding our human resource and how will that data contribute to our human capital intelligence?  How can we ensure that the data from one manager be consistent with that of another manager conducting an assessment?

In my next article on performance management, we will consider behavioural approaches to create a solid foundation for an effective performance management process.

WHERE DO YOU START WHEN YOU DEVELOP A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?

Deciding on the theory and practice of a performance management system is of vital importance. Why? Because if an organisation is to delegate performance management responsibilities to a number of different managers, the organisation needs to know that the desired results and measures are consistent.

How can the Board or CEO of an organisation exercise judgment about management if they are not familiar with the often-varying theory and practice of individual managers? After all, my opinion when assessing satisfactory performance in the area of say Teamwork might quite likely vary to yours.

The STARF® description of Teamwork is:
Works as a participative team member. Actively shares views and ideas and encourages colleagues, peers and subordinates to do the same. Puts team goals ahead of personal agendas.

And just like in my last article, there is going to have to be an agreement between the parties of what is important in the performance management process. This agreement about what is important is not only about the measures, but the practice and theory of how the measures are reached.

The parties being the members of the management team. So what am I saying? Before you commence deciding on what KPI's, behaviours etc are important to your organisation; you're going to have to agree on the rules. Otherwise it's going to be like a whole lot of drivers on the road who are not sharing a common road code. Imagine the death toll!

You'll need to ask yourself questions like, is our performance management process about just conducting a performance review process to review salaries, or is it about value alignment to the organisations culture, or is it about continuous improvement?

Chances are that it will be about continuous improvement. Therefore, when considering what behaviours may be required of both the manager and the employee in the performance management process, you'll need to consider both personal and professional development.

The STARF® description of Continuous Learning - Personal is:
Responds to challenges and embraces opportunities to explore own behaviour.

The STARF® description of Continuous Learning - Professional is:
Is receptive to new and different learning processes. Has a concern for and personal commitment to accuracy, quality and continuous improvement.

For example, if an organisation wishes to inspire their employees to modify their behaviour as part of their personal and professional development, then the management of the organisation need to be prepared to take personal responsibility for their own behaviour and adopt a transparent approach to the performance management process and also be prepared to share their own personal experiences.

There is an adage about people and their judgments about the performance of others, you might have even said it when being judged yourself…. "Look in the mirror!". It reminds me of a joke, what did one mirror say to the other? It's all done with people!

So lets get some alignment here. Improvement, reward and recognition go part and parcel. So, lets agree then for arguments sake, that you have decided that performance management in your organisation is about continuous improvement and that the management is prepared to explore their own behaviour and contribute to changing the traditional hierarchical power structure approach to performance management, not in terms of decision rights, but in terms of culture. Lets assume that the management is prepared to take a participative approach to performance management. What are the options?

The mire of emotions with such a vulnerable approach is sure to scare the most hardened manager. However, the rewards are great when considering this best practice approach in the area of performance management.

Consider this for a moment: The Vision of your organisation provides for its desired future state. Your Strategies give your people the ways and means to make it all happen. Your values show your people what you expect of them in their work. Behaviours specify how they will demonstrate them.

Effective Performance Management Systems measure:
- What your people have achieved - How they have done this

Consider for a moment where is your organisation on the chart below?

Your performance management process should lend itself to assisting you in moving up the ladder on this table in any or all of the 5 dimensions. To do this you'd need to decide on a performance management culture. One intellectualisation of this culture has been defined as a "Learning Organisation".

One definition of a Learning Organisation is: One that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself. It is a place in which people at all levels, individuals and collectively, is continually increasing their capacity to produce results they really care about, and its structure, culture and processes facilitate organisational learning.

So for an organisation to facilitate the learning of all it's members, it's performance management facilitators are going to have to be prepared to accept that performance management, for the sake of all stakeholders, is a process whereby all stakeholders agree very clearly what is important, to the company, not to personal agenda's or individual theories or practices, to encourage full participation in the process. Rather than sitting across the table from your employees, sitting next to them is the norm. This requires a paradigm shift.

In my next article on Performance Management, we'll look at how someone might go about setting up the foundations for a Performance Management process that encourages transparency and alignment to what is important by inspiring personal and professional development. An organisation committed on the path toward a Learning Organisation for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders.

NEW HR SOLUTION SLASHES RECRUITMENT COSTS

After implementing revolutionary new Human Resources solution 'STARF®', Pharmacy Direct says its HR related costs have dropped significantly. David McNickel investigates the groundbreaking locally developed system

Although new launches and version upgrades in the business software industry are relatively commonplace, occasionally something arrives that makes you sit up and take notice. And so it was when Pharmacy Direct was first introduced to 'STARF®' - a built from scratch web enabled Human Resources (HR) software package developed in New Zealand and targeted at companies at the larger end of the Small to Medium Enterprise (SME) market.

Tied to the business plan
STARF® founder and driving force, Ranald Hendriks, is a 17 year veteran of the human resources industry who left his secure corporate role about five years ago to develop an all-encompassing human resources solution he has now branded 'STARF®'. And according to his customers what's been produced is one of the simplest to operate, yet functionally deep pieces of business technology around today.
So what is STARF®? Perhaps the first thing to make clear is that the key to the STARF® solution is in tying employment and performance management processes and documentation to a company's business plan. In essence it is a employment related document generator, trainer, evaluator, and enabler that works through a web browser interface.

"One thing that became abundantly clear during my years in HR," says Hendriks, "was that job descriptions tended to be closely matched to the people in the roles. You would often come across scenarios where a manager would say 'we need somebody, let's just get someone in and then figure what they'll be doing when they get here'. Job descriptions were written to fit the people rather than to fit the business plan of the company, which is the completely wrong way of doing things." Once an employment ad or job description is created, the automation of the STARF® system takes over, and an employment contract is created based on the job description. Job interview and reference check questions are also generated. "If you've ever had to do a job interview specifically tailored to a role, you know how long it can take to think up appropriate questions," says Hendriks. "With STARF® they are all created automatically and you can configure them as you wish."

STARF® in action
One of STARF®'s first clients is Auckland based Pharmacy Direct. With stores in Penrose and Northcote and a successful e-business portal ( www.pharmacydirect.co.nz) Pharmacy Direct had grown quickly and was in need of an HR solution, although, as founder Greg Macpherson explains, exactly what this solution should be was far from certain. "We had grown to around 40 staff," he says, "and I knew we had to get a system in place - either a HR person on the team or something else. Our main problem was attracting new pharmacists. Applicants are so much more discerning these days and have high expectations of employers, but as soon as we started using STARF® it lifted our HR processes to another level. It was professional and helped us attract the kind of people we were looking for." Macpherson says protection against personal grievance is another factor employers need to consider closely when deciding on an HR solution. "As sad as it is to say, it's a fact of life these days that some employees think that taking a personal grievance action is almost a normal part of their exit strategy. So you have to be absolutely in compliance with every aspect of employment law - and the embedded systems in STARF® ensure that you are."

But the solution goes well beyond that says Hendriks. "Organisations operating STARF® are compliant with the Human Rights Act, Health & Safety Act and the Privacy Act, as they relate to employment" he says. "But more than that, they are compliant with the intention of these Acts - ensuring that an organisation's staff are trained correctly, reviewed fairly and performance managed professionally - and this all helps create a harmonious working environment aligned with the objectives of a business plan."

Steps to implementation
Implementing STARF® is an evolution, not a revolution says Macpherson, and he was quickly able to get the solution adding value to his organisation. "One of the first processes we went through was to align both myself and my partners job descriptions to our business plan. We then went through and aligned our senior management team to their job descriptions and the business plan. They then did the same to their team." The return on investment was immediately apparent he says. "It was incredibly valuable," he says. "STARF® has enabled us to optimise everybody's role within the organisation so that the whole team is pulling in the same direction - this has been hugely effective in clarifying roles for all. We are seeing massive productivity gains and staff that are generally happier as they know exactly what they have to focus on."

Career management ongoing
But STARF® doesn't stop working once an employee has joined a company. With the pool of employees so small in New Zealand today, organisations need to dramatically reduce staff churn. One key to this is STARF®'s ongoing performance management modules says Macpherson. "The system allows me to delegate performance management in a way that I know is consistent across my organisation," he says. "It is database driven so once you do a job description all of the other dimensions of HR are wrapped around that. A job description gives you a contract, a 30 day review, a 90 day review, a 360 degree six monthly review. It takes the stress out of the review process as we can discuss job dimensions and coach the individual to be the best they can be given the agreed dimensions of their role. And as the company managing director, I'm comfortable that performance management will be a fair process - this has to help with retention and performance and we haven't had a personal grievance since we implemented STARF®."

Perhaps the one difficulty for STARF®, says Macpherson, is the HR reference points most people are familiar with. "As a manager I was aware of recruitment companies and employment portals and I'd even considered getting in a full time HR person. But after Ranald came in and carefully took me through the STARF® offering, it was so different to anything I had come across - it really opened new doors for us in how we manage HR and we've never looked back. It's a whole new approach to it and offers so much more than anything else around today. To be honest I'm very pleased now that we didn't go down the path of hiring an HR person."

WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT?

i-Start Magazine (http://www.istart.co.nz) -- With nearly 20 years experience in human resources, STARF® founder Ranald Hendriks says a comprehensive rethink around HR issues is required to ensure that organisations enable their staff to deliver results to their full potential. In the first of a series of articles on Performance Management, he identifies the dominant reason for 'poor' performance - and whose responsibility it really is…

The labour market in New Zealand currently is about as tight as it has ever been. No time like the present then to explore one of the hottest topics in human resources today - Performance Management. Depending on the circumstances and who you talk to, performance management has a variety of definitions. It is usually referred to as 'a process to manage an employee who is not achieving to expectation'. My own personal definition is: 'A process that helps people communicate, so that they can achieve goals that align their own personal agendas with an organisation's desired outcomes, as detailed in its business plan'. In our STARF® Pattern® training, it has the following definition: 'Performance management is the organisation of work in ways that achieve the best possible results in line with the organisation's objectives'.

Finding out 'why?'
Whatever the definition of performance management, after nearly 20 years of personal experience with hundreds of organisations, I can state categorically that traditional performance management processes approach the issue like an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Yes they address the 'poor' performer, but not the causes of that poor performance. They don't address the 'why', and yet the addressing the 'why' is fundamental to the ongoing performance health of the organisation. So what is the 'why'? In the vast majority of cases it is a misunderstanding between two people of what was actually important to the organisation - and it is also the process by which those misunderstandings occurred in the first place. After all, would it not be reasonable to assume, except for a few aberrations, that all people truly want to excel and achieve beyond their own expectations?

So how do these misunderstandings of what is important occur? The answer is that it usually isn't because there was 'no' communication, but instead the communication simply went off the rails and lost focus. The dominant reason why this occurs is that the employee doesn't actually hear what is being said in a performance review because they become fixed on the idea that they have done something 'wrong'. While this may in fact be true, if an employee picks up in a session that they have performed badly, it blots out everything else that is said. Emotions take over - after all, we've all being programmed our entire lives to realise there are serious consequences for being wrong (a smack from Mum, a detention at school, a failed exam etc). So if there is a problem with an employee's performance, then who is responsible for it? Typically in a review scenario both the employer and employee now face the same dilemma - deciding who really has the problem! And where, during all this, has the focus on what is important to the organisation gone? The short answer is… out the window. As you can see (and have probably experienced), maintaining a focus on what is important, as opposed to protecting oneself, is not a traditional behaviour pattern in an employment relationship.

Effective communication for better performance
So as we recognise that performance management issues are simply a misunderstanding of what is important, we also recognise that effective communication is vital in pro-actively addressing performance management. While solutions like STARF® can ensure organisations have the correct systems and processes in place to address performance management issues, the organisation also needs to address its foundation, which in the case of human resources, is at the top. Put simply, to find out what is happening in an organisation, you measure it at the bottom and address it at the top - board, managing director and CEO level.

The STARF® description of Leadership is:
Utilisation of appropriate interpersonal styles and methods in guiding individuals (subordinates, peers and superiors) or groups towards task accomplishment

So whose responsibility is performance management? The answer is an organisation's leaders. They recognise that the best leaders are mentors and to be a true mentor, you can't just pretend, or go through the motions, you must actually be a mentor, living it - and guiding your team towards task accomplishment. In my next article in this series on the Performance Management Cycle, we'll begin to look at how to develop a Performance Management System, and specifically how to get clear on what is important in your organisation.

SELF ANALYSIS

A Simple Self Analysis in 5 Dimensions

Performance management is a Human Resource Process that is about helping managers implement strategic and organisational changes.  Your organisation's Mission Statement tells you, your people and your clients your purpose, the reason you exist.

Your Vision of your organisation provides for its desired future state.  Your Strategies give your people the ways and means to make it all happen.  Your values show your people what you expect of them in their work.  Behaviours specify how they will demonstrate them.

Effective Performance Management Systems measure:

- What your people have achieved

- How they have done this

From wherever you are, to wherever you WANT to be - STARF® have the tools to get you there.

BEING SYSTEMATIC

An article published in the NZ HR Journal, Employment Today,

So easy to get it wrong, yet you can get recruitment and selection right by using an efficient and effective system, says Ranald Hendriks.

Recruitment and selection - so easy to get wrong and yet you want to get it right!   What can you do to avoid making the wrong decision itself, as well as eliminate the potential for all errors and mistakes that can so easily arise in the entire process?

It's simple. Be systematic!

Recruitment and selection activities which consume both time and other resources always come at a cost.  Most personnel companies and larger organisations have some procedures in place to progress their recruitment and selection activities.  For most smaller organisations it may well be a one-off event for which there is little, if any, time available to develop such procedures as and when the requirement arises.

Whatever the circumstances, there is an absolute need for recruitment and selection activity to be systematic in terms of both the development of the procedures as well as their subsequent application each and every time they are implemented.

So what does being systematic involve?  There are two aspects:

Efficiency

This is the measure of utilisation of resources in achieving a task.  An efficient recruitment and selection process uses the minimum amount of resources needed to identify and place the selected individual.  Any future resources that may also be used are extra to those actually needed and make the process less efficient.

Effectiveness

This is the extent to which the process delivers the desired result.  An ineffective selection system is where the wrong individual is selected as revealed in their subsequent failure to perform in the job and/or remain in that position.

However, an efficient process may not necessarily be an effective one - the HR equivalent of the medical profession's "the operation was a success, but the patient died".  In the same way an effective process may not necessarily be efficient.
Effectiveness is the priority issue - employers want the "right" person, so that "doing things right" is more important than "doing right things" (but maybe not getting it right).

Developing and sustaining a systematic approach to recruitment and selection is one way of being both efficient and effective.  What does such a systematic approach involve, and how will you recognise one when you see one? Some useful indicators of a systematic approach are:

• The same procedure is used each time a particular type of vacancy is to be filled
  Why use a method devised on an ad hoc basis everytime a vacancy arises?  Design a specific procedure, trial it, and then refine it based on that trial for next time and so on - a continuous improvement methodology!
  
• Each of the various activities used are relevant to the position
  If telephone skills are an ongoing daily component of the position, then build in an actual test of these within the procedure as well as a reference check on ability to sustain that performance over time and in stressful circumstances.
  
• The sequence of these activities is logical and cost efficient in dollars and time
  Psychometrics and reference checking of the preferred candidates only.
  
• The activities selected are resourced, documented, and flow charted
  Have a kit pre-assembled for use and flow charts to control and sign off each stage of the overall process both in terms of the progression of each individual candidate as well as the overall assignment.
  
• Use Best Practice technologies and procedures
  While the interview still remains a preferred activity in recruitment and selection, use behavioural interviewing to gain an accurate indication from past performances as to how each candidate is likely to behave in future job relevant circumstances.
  
• Use Technology - The Future Can Be Now!
  A software interview generator on competencies will give you the appropriate questions to ask for the given position.

The forms and systems available for running your business with STARF® provide for effective easy to use tools that are systematic.

PARADIGM SHIFT

The New Management Lifestyle

Management Magazine -- Is your company Mission Statement clear and concise? Does it summarise your company perfectly - it's values, beliefs, strategies and planned goals?  Does your team consist of talented, skilled and motivated people who you believe in?  Are you the market-leader, innovative, creative and changing with the times?

Problem.  Are your best people leaving?  Do some factions of your company not co-operate with others?  Do some staff members have behavioural problems?  Are others stressed?  Maybe you have high absenteeism.  Any of these, and chances are your company isn't actually functioning at its best.

Why do companies experiencing change have difficulties? Usually it comes down to the values of the company not matching the values of the workers, if this is the case there will always be conflict.  Often the state of the company is only judged by the bottom line.  The essence of operational development is that it is possible for performance management to be both results and people focused.

The mission statement does not automatically entitle a company to a culture. The culture is the identity of the company, the personality.  In many companies the culture and the mission statement are a long way apart.  Usually managers talk about the desired state and the workers talk about what it is actually like.

Successful change is about preparing people.  Preparing people emotionally.   If people are emotionally uncertain or unprepared, a barrier will go up, things will not go according to plan and good people may be lost.  Autocratic behaviour at any management level means you have not got a participative team.

"The new management lifestyle involves developing accountable teams that are open, honest, self directed and fully functioning.  This is a participative management style, the big paradigm shift in the world today.  The participative system is about accountability, equality, expressiveness, innovation, justice and dignity in people" says Ranald Hendriks, CEO, Hendriks Human Resources.  "Operational development is the transition of the Mission Statement from paper to reality."