The truth about South Africa

[Hannes Botha]

@Wynn. It's a nice sentiment, but also the slackers notice soon enough, whether they personally perform or not, they get their share. Soon more people notice this and the dream fades. There is a reason why some people are not business owners, but rather employees....

Here is an example: A professor wanted to prove a political point that some systems of ruling a country doesn't work. So he resorted to giving everyone the average grade of the class. At first all was well because the slackers also got the average grade...however the top performers also got the average grade. Soon the slackers realized that they do not have to do anything and still get grade average, which mean they did even less. Also the top students realized that their hard work was benefiting only the slackers because even if they got excellent grades, the slackers' grades pulled averages down. Everybody ended up failing...

I found the only way to motivate is a performance driven bonus. Four quarterly performance appraisals based on KPA's and KPI's which the staff get at their induction. If changes are made to KPI's and KPA's you get the employee to sign off on what they will be appraised on for the next quarter.

However in some sectors (as in my current motor industry sector) the option to do this was taken away by the unions by making a two weeks bonus mandatory, regardless of performance, which means....even the slackers gets a passing grade...

[BusFact]

I absolutely love that analogy of the professor and the class marks for the economics of income and reward.

[vieome]

@Wynn. It's a nice sentiment, but also the slackers notice soon enough, whether they personally perform or not, they get their share. Soon more people notice this and the dream fades. There is a reason why some people are not business owners, but rather employees....

Here is an example: A professor wanted to prove a political point that some systems of ruling a country doesn't work. So he resorted to giving everyone the average grade of the class. At first all was well because the slackers also got the average grade...however the top performers also got the average grade. Soon the slackers realized that they do not have to do anything and still get grade average, which mean they did even less. Also the top students realized that their hard work was benefiting only the slackers because even if they got excellent grades, the slackers' grades pulled averages down. Everybody ended up failing...

I found the only way to motivate is a performance driven bonus. Four quarterly performance appraisals based on KPA's and KPI's which the staff get at their induction. If changes are made to KPI's and KPA's you get the employee to sign off on what they will be appraised on for the next quarter.

However in some sectors (as in my current motor industry sector) the option to do this was taken away by the unions by making a two weeks bonus mandatory, regardless of performance, which means....even the slackers gets a passing grade...

I think what that proves is that bad employee management can cause bad employees, remember the students are only reacting to the Professor style of leading in each case. So the question is what could the professor of done to improve grades for all?

[HR Solutions]

I think what that proves is that bad employee management can cause bad employees

That is SO true. Very often when you deal with someone and pick up a bad attitude and it does not get any better as the conversation goes on - you just know that either the owner or his boss has got the same kak attitude.

[tec0]

Be careful who you send home be careful who you keep when it comes to employees... Not every person with a good CV has has Good intentions and not every person with a bad CV has bad intentions. Sometimes bad people get ahead in life and good people get burned.

[HR Solutions]

Be careful who you send home be careful who you keep when it comes to employees... Not every person with a good CV has has Good intentions and not every person with a bad CV has bad intentions. Sometimes bad people get ahead in life and good people get burned.

Thats why there are ways to check people out from EVERY aspect - (qualifications, residence, ITC, Work experience, blacklists)

[adrianh]

Criminal record, ITC and blacklistings are grey areas though. A person may have a criminal record for driving at 180kmh during a legitimate emergency. He may be on ITC and blacklisted because his previous employer retrenched him and he has been unable to find work due to circumstance.

[tec0]

Criminal record, ITC and blacklistings are grey areas though. A person may have a criminal record for driving at 180kmh during a legitimate emergency. He may be on ITC and blacklisted because his previous employer retrenched him and he has been unable to find work due to circumstance.

There are a lot of reasons why people end up with records not all of them legitimate this is true. But this doesn't matter in the end of the day, apart from screening processes, testing and background checks, there are also bylaws and a complected process to follow on the employers behalf to keep the system "fair" or "Free from favouritism" in the end most of us will have less then 1% chance in landing a good long term job. Hence why people are moving away to other countries, try to restart there lives. I cannot really blame them honestly who can.

But in the end it is how the above information get used, what choices will be made and where that will leave an individual.

0

[HR Solutions]

You said

Be careful who you send home be careful who you keep when it comes to employees.

I said there are ways to check it out.
Then you come back with your answer, which is totally out of sequence with the original statement.

Therefore my answer is - there are no grey areas - as I said there are ways to check and double check on people

[tec0]

Be careful who you send home be careful who you keep when it comes to employees... Not every person with a good CV has has Good intentions and not every person with a bad CV has bad intentions. Sometimes bad people get ahead in life and good people get burned.

Thats why there are ways to check people out from EVERY aspect - (qualifications, residence, ITC, Work experience, blacklists)

Criminal record, ITC and blacklistings are grey areas though. A person may have a criminal record for driving at 180kmh during a legitimate emergency. He may be on ITC and blacklisted because his previous employer retrenched him and he has been unable to find work due to circumstance.

You said


I said there are ways to check it out.
Then you come back with your answer, which is totally out of sequence with the original statement.

Therefore my answer is - there are no grey areas - as I said there are ways to check and double check on people

I said nothing about gray arias... those where not my words.

I did say this,

There are a lot of reasons why people end up with records not all of them legitimate this is true. But this doesn't matter in the end of the day, apart from screening processes, testing and background checks, there are also bylaws and a complected process to follow on the employers behalf to keep the system "fair" or "Free from favouritism" in the end most of us will have less then 1% chance in landing a good long term job. Hence why people are moving away to other countries, try to restart there lives. I cannot really blame them honestly who can.

But in the end it is how the above information get used, what choices will be made and where that will leave an individual.

0

I did not say anything about gray arias, my context above you will find i completely agree that there are a lot or reasons why people get records not all of them legitimate thus agreeing with both Adrian and yourself as both are equally true to the same degree. All that i wanted to add is that employers has a hard time keeping up with the many bylaws and other requirements and that the chances are for a minority individual to actually get the job after said process is very slim. I believe the equity [(law) a legal tradition dealing with fairness and ethics] is 9 to 1 and i stand to be corrected because it did change again if i am not mistaken.

[Blurock]

I believe that we pay just enough to keep an employee and they do just enough to keep their job.

If we introduced a system of paying the employees a decent share of the profits as and when they occur, the group of them will ensure that greater profits occur more often and regularly.

Sure there will be problems setting this system up but once it starts working properly the entire staff will police each other to ensure efficiency, productivity and profit are maintained at the highest level, a slacker will be chased up or out and theft or shrinkage whether of stock, time, facilities or transport will be almost eliminated, even down to the 'tea girl' who will be hovering around a client offering tea or coffee.

As a business owner one would be better off taking say 50% of a greater profit than 100% of a much lesser amount and the bonus is you would probably personally do a lot less to achieve that.

I once assisted a client to set up a management buyout as he wished to gradually withdraw from the business and retire. The staff only had to pay for the assets and equipment to take over. As he had already made his money and the business would then be owned and managed by the staff, the owner and senior management agreed to an experiment whereby salaries would be linked to performance. It would mean that fixed costs would be reduced and salaries would become a variable cost.

In essence all staff would be able to earn more (double) as long as they had orders. They could also increase income with higher productivity. Should they lose orders, their income would be reduced. In other words, earnings would be directly related to output or productivity. It was agreed that staff would vote on the idea before implementation. Everyone agreed to the scheme, except for three slackers. Two of which were fired within the next 3 - 4 months for stealing from their employer.

[wynn]

I once assisted a client to set up a management buyout as he wished to gradually withdraw from the business and retire. The staff only had to pay for the assets and equipment to take over. As he had already made his money and the business would then be owned and managed by the staff, the owner and senior management agreed to an experiment whereby salaries would be linked to performance. It would mean that fixed costs would be reduced and salaries would become a variable cost.

In essence all staff would be able to earn more (double) as long as they had orders. They could also increase income with higher productivity. Should they lose orders, their income would be reduced. In other words, earnings would be directly related to output or productivity. It was agreed that staff would vote on the idea before implementation. Everyone agreed to the scheme, except for three slackers. Two of which were fired within the next 3 - 4 months for stealing from their employer.

How did the business fare after the buy out?

[HR Solutions]

@ Blurock - fantastic idea profit sharing. Its amazing how well it works in most instances. They check little things - how long heaters are running, cutting down on coffee throughout the day etc etc etc - all to bring down expenses.

[Blurock]

How did the business fare after the buy out?

The "Rainbow Plan" was not implemented as all agreed that there has to be 100% buy-in. Two of the three slackers who objected (one a foreman) were fired by the new management, due to theft. Business carried on as usual, but eventually had to close its doors as the management (workers) did not have the same entrepreneurial spirit and drive as the original owner.

[wynn]

as the management (workers) did not have the same entrepreneurial spirit and drive as the original owner.

That's exactly why I asked!

I believe that profit share has to be an arrow in the entrepreneurs quiver, if you just give/sell a going concern to the management and staff it seldom has the required result, however MBO's have definitely worked if run along the same old system, it takes a leap of faith for the new management to institute profit sharing.

Usually the system requires a drop in the fixed wages of the workers, say a 20% wages drop for a 20% share of the profits calculated on a factor that pays them the exact same wage as before if they only achieve the same turnover/profit ratio as before.

The drop in wages usually results in the slackers leaving almost immediately and the rest strive to beat the turnover/profit ratio from the start.

TIP!! never start a system like this during expected low turnover months such as December.