Mapfumo Matimba

All things Life, Love, Law. Jesus is Lord, and He is coming again.

[Thokozane Maloka @iamtmaloka]

One of my favourite politicians in the world is Uganda’s ex-Finance Minister, Mr. Matia Kasaija. What a legend!

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

In my experience on boards, one of the most decisive factors in board effectiveness is how meetings are chaired. A good chair creates space for all board members to contribute while being disciplined about the use of time. They understand that airtime is a scarce resource in a board meeting and manage it deliberately. When done well, discussions are focused, inclusive, and move the board toward sound judgment.

Poorly chaired meetings look very different. The chair speaks too much, has an answer for everything, and ends up crowding out other board members. In such meetings, the chair unintentionally becomes the main discussant rather than the facilitator of the discussion. This weakens the board because capable members with valuable perspectives either speak less or stop contributing altogether. Over time, the board becomes dependent on the chair’s thinking instead of benefiting from collective judgment.

The chair’s primary role is to facilitate candid, high-quality discussion, not to dominate it or to offer solutions upfront. When a chair gives their view too early, it narrows the discussion and suppresses alternative perspectives. Good chairs deliberately hold back, invite contributions, test different viewpoints, and only then offer their own views, often as a way of synthesizing what has already been said. In my observation, the most effective chairs speak less, listen more, and use their authority to draw out the best thinking in the room rather than to replace it.
@ipcconsultants

[Mapfumo Matimba @2mosolutions]

"Strong boards allow, and even expect, disagreement. They work because a few members are willing to speak up ....These truth-tellers are not disruptive. They are responsible."

Tough, tough truths!

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

When I look back on my board experience, one lesson stands out clearly: too much harmony is dangerous. A board that is always agreeable slowly becomes complacent. Meetings feel smooth, there are few hard questions, and decisions are taken quickly. On the surface this looks like good governance, but in reality it often means that real issues are being avoided.

Strong boards allow, and even expect, disagreement. They work because a few members are willing to speak up when something does not make sense or when the organization is heading in the wrong direction. These truth-tellers are not disruptive. They are responsible. They test ideas, challenge assumptions, and force the board to think more carefully. Without this kind of challenge, boards easily slide into approving management papers without proper scrutiny.

At the same time, constant fighting helps no one. Unproductive conflict can paralyse a board just as much as blind agreement. Good governance sits in the middle. There must be enough tension to surface problems early, but enough discipline to keep discussions focused and respectful. When a board feels too comfortable, that is usually a warning sign, not a strength.
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

If you are a manager or business leader, one of the most powerful pivots you can make is to get serious about hiring. Nothing else reshapes an organisation as decisively. Do not take shortcuts. Friends, relatives, and former colleagues should only be hired if they are demonstrably competent for the role. Lowering the bar to fill a vacancy is a slow way of damaging your business. Hiring mistakes are expensive, disruptive, and difficult to reverse once someone is on the payroll.

Good hiring is disciplined, structured, and evidence-based. Use a clear hiring policy. Define what the job actually requires. Assess candidates against that standard using methods that are known to work. This is not new knowledge. Decades of research have already settled what predicts job performance. Follow that evidence consistently. Organisations that win in the long run do not get lucky with people. They hire deliberately, rigorously, and without compromise.
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

In my experience, board meetings often run longer than necessary because the board’s systems and structures are poorly configured. A big part of the problem sits in committee work, not because committees are unnecessary, but because they are sometimes used incorrectly. Committees are intended to do deeper work on behalf of the board so the full board can make better decisions more quickly. When committees drift, the whole board meeting becomes slow, repetitive, and cluttered.

Let us be clear up front: even committees must not encroach on operational management. Their role is not to supervise management directly or to micro-manage execution. Committees exist to focus on strategic and governance matters that require board direction, validation, and oversight. Management must remain accountable for operational delivery. When committees start acting like operational supervisors, they blur accountability, weaken executive ownership, and turn governance into day-to-day interference.

The best advantage of committees is time and depth. Committees can go into the data, test assumptions, scrutinise risks, and interrogate management submissions properly, then bring a clean recommendation to the board. That is where committee chairs must tighten their discipline. When presenting committee reports to the board, do not summarise your deliberations. The board does not need a play-by-play of what was said in the committee. Focus on what you are recommending and why, grounded in evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. If there are emerging or developing issues the board should note, place them clearly as a separate section of the committee report. If time permits, briefly highlight them. If time does not permit, board members should have already read them.

Even at committee level, meetings should not be long when the committee is focused and management has prepared insightful submissions. The reality, however, is that management sometimes dumps information with no analysis and no conclusions. Those “to whom it may concern” reports force committee members to do the thinking that management should have done before the meeting. That slows everything down and encourages committees to wander into operational detail because they are trying to create meaning from raw material. The standard must be simple: management brings insight, committees bring challenge and validation, and the board receives clear recommendations that support decisive governance.
@ipcconsultants

[Mapfumo Matimba @2mosolutions]

" There is no way you can sustain high performance with mediocre employees in critical and high value roles." I felt that.

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

One thing that strikes me about stories of organisations struggling and sports teams failing is this. People usually already know the real problem. Even outsiders. Stakeholders who only interact with the organisation from the outside can still see the pattern. They do not have access to internal reports, but they can read the outcomes.

What do most comments point to? Poor talent selection. In simple terms, you did not hire the right people. People were not employed on merit.

I have said this before, many times. Any organisation that cares about winning will not win without securing the best available talent on merit. Not good enough. Not the one we know, but the best you can find for the role.

The uncomfortable truth is that many hiring decisions are not made in the organisation’s interest. They are made in the manager’s interest. Some people charged with hiring put self interest ahead of institutional performance. That is why they take shortcuts. They bring people they like, people they owe favours to, people they can control, and people who will not challenge them. They prefer followers and parrots to performers and truth-tellers.

That choice has a cost, and the cost shows up later as poor performance. The manager might not feel it immediately, but the organisation pays for it every day. Slow execution. Weak decisions. Missed targets. A culture of excuses. And what makes it worse is that many of these decision-makers do not course-correct when performance declines. They rationalise. They blame the environment. They blame the budget. They blame the lack of resources. Meanwhile, the real resource problem is sitting in the seat.

Nepotism in hiring is one of the biggest threats to organisational performance. It is not a small ethical issue. It is a performance issue. It is a strategy issue. It is a sustainability issue. Once mediocrity occupies critical roles, the organisation loses the ability to think well, decide well, and execute well. You cannot sustain high performance with weak talent in high leverage positions. That is true in government, councils, state entities, and the private sector. It is the same rule.

This is why serious countries and serious institutions hunt for talent. They bring the best brains they can find, from wherever they are, because they understand a basic principle. The quality of your people sets the ceiling for your performance. If you want to win, you do not recruit locally just because it is convenient. You recruit widely because performance is the goal.

Let me say this clearly. There is no way you can sustain high performance with mediocre employees in critical and high value roles. Not over time. You might survive for a while. You might even look fine on paper for a year or two. But eventually reality wins.

I also worry about something else. The obsession with more and more qualifications and more and more years of experience when hiring. Research is clear that qualifications and experience have a weak relationship with actual job performance. Yet many organisations treat them like guarantees. Look around. Many failed organisations were run by highly qualified and experienced people.

Clever people find their way, even in difficult environments. They adapt. They solve problems. They deliver. But if your hiring system rewards connections over competence, you filter out those people. You promote the very mediocrity that later becomes the organisation’s problem.

If we could fix hiring properly, consistently, and on merit, most problems in state entities, councils, and even private sector organisations would become manageable.
@ipcconsultants

[The Prince Machiavelli @terrymap1]

To my friends. I present to you the KwaTerry Village. Now you can spend Nights at KwaTerry. The ultimate Village experience is here. My offering for the Year🙏🏿. #KwaTerry #Village6 #Mugwazvangu #November28

[Fadzayi Mahere🇿🇼 @advocatemahere]

🔸Buy a copy of Hoffman and Zeffert. Read all the Banana cases two or three times - especially the analysis of evidence. Comb through the Civil Evidence Act. Prepare solid notes will all the rules of evidence and the relevant doctrines. Master the exceptions (make colour-coded cards). It’s a Distinction waiting to happen kune munhu ari serious. Good luck.

We need new leaders.🇿🇼

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

If you were asked to shortlist three candidates from this list for the role of Accountant, which three would you shortlist and why?
@ipcconsultants

[Brisco @BornfaceBandaa]

Zimbabwe continues to produce amazing sports stars. From Harare to Hollywood lights - Nate Landman shines in American
NFL🇺🇸🇿🇼.

[Mapfumo Matimba @2mosolutions]

@terrymap1 Beautiful stuff!

[Leddy @LeddyLLC]

Every person over 35 blames aging for their stiff, aching joints.

Turns out it's not age... it's years of neglect catching up.

Here is 8 simple ways to rebuild your joints and feel 25 again🧵:

[Dieudonne HARAGIRIMANA @diharagirimana]

Modern #GoatGarming structure. This can be your next biggest project.

[Dill @DiTheBeliever]

Hi brothers and sisters, if you have never seen a side by side comparison of Psalm 22 and the Gospel account of Jesus's crucifixion, I just wanted to share this with you all. Hope this blesses you all 🙂

[Today I Learned @TodayiLearrned]

How to make your home pest-free

[Tawanda Nyambirai @tawandan1]

I am not an extrovert. I don’t drink. I go to church. But in the modern church, you make friends if you have something to give. Even if you give, most church recipients have a feeling of entitlement. They feel it’s their prayers that have been answered. They feel it’s God who has given them. And they say it in your face without regard to the sacrifices you have made to get to a position where you can give. In most cases when they borrow, they have no intention to repay. That explains why in Zimbabwe, a predominantly Christian country, a person like Mr Strive Masiyiwa who has sent hundreds of thousands of kids to school receives attacks and abuse instead of honor. Like he correctly said to me last week, in Zimbabwe you are certain to get more accolades than you deserve after your demise. Not during your lifetime.

For an introvert like me, networking becomes very difficult. You have to start very early. And you start by putting your best foot forward every time in order to get noticed and to prove that you are a worthy connection. I made some of my career defining connections when I was at University. Beatrice Mtetwa became an acquaintance because of her act of charity. But my connection to Justice DAB Robinson was earned. I worked hard for it and I earned an ambassador who always sang my praises in places I could not access at the time. Those praises would keep some doors open for me, some doors I hadn’t even knocked.

So I was in year one at the Faculty of Law in 1989. I was studying for an LLBS. We were the first stream to do an LLBS outright. They used to do a BL as a first degree, followed by a one year post graduate LLBS. One of the subjects we took was Statutory Interpretation. Our Lecturer was DAB Robinson, then a judge of the High Court. I am not sure whether he was on the bench at the time. But he certainly was in 1993. We were taking this subject alongside our post graduate 4th year Seniors.

One day after our exams, we were standing in the “Intellectual Circle” in front of the Faculty. Justice Robinson was there, talking to the 4th years about how badly the 1st years performed in relation to one of the questions. I distinctly remember my brother Elisha Moyo was there. Always fearless and vibrant. The genius Professor Madhuku would have been there too .. I now can’t remember. I did not agree with them. But the guys were so learned, a first year guy’s argument would have been drowned out. I decided to go to my room, write a letter to Justice Robinson, put it under his door, and leave for my rural home, kuminda mirefu kwaMahinduka, the area between Chiwundura and Lalapanzi. I did exactly that. The judge responded. The delivery of his letter to my residence in New Complex 2 was returned. So he went to Student records and found my rural address. He posted the letter with the intention that it would get to me before Christmas. And it did. I will post it below. Please read it. An important relationship was birthed. I am sure, though I don’t know for a fact that Justice Robinson had put in a good word for me with Harry Kantor at Kantor & Immerman. After I qualified, I would help the judge with a lot of research on corporate law cases. He is the one who told me that a good corporate lawyer must always have a set of Henoschberg on the South African Companies Act in his library. So Justice Robinson was one of the most important contacts I earned at a very early stage. From the start, I was sure to always get respectful audience from senior High Court Judges. The lesson is to leverage on your strengths to get noticed and to make important relationships.

[Tawanda Nyambirai @tawandan1]

At Kantor & Immerman, Kevin Laue was my supervisor. His practice was predominantly debt collection. And the Debt Collection department then run by Bonny Marase was under his supervision.

After a few months of intensive training, Kevin kindly released me and allowed me to pick another supervisor if I so wished. I chose Mervin Immerman. Mervin did not have a law degree. He qualified in South Africa, but I don’t know how. He was a common sense kind of guy, but one of the greatest lawyers I have ever known. He had an expansive network of wealthy clients. Most of the NGOs that used to operate in Zimbabwe were his clients. Most of the foreign Embassies were his clients. Many commercial farmers, blue chip companies listed on the ZSE, Banking institutions etc were his clients. If a matter became legally technical he would go to Anthony Eastwood for assistance. If Anthony was not interested, he would hand it down to someone else or just neglect it.

There was a pile of neglected files. I ploughed through them and updated each of them. All the letters I did, I did in the name of Mervin. When we needed to apologise to clients, we apologized. Where there was a crisis to be handled, I sought assistance from Anthony. They would have a shouting match with Mervin first, but I would get the assistance I needed. Trust grew between Mervin and I. A couple of times his wife, Rhoda came in to appreciate what I was doing for Mervin. They both decided to build me up. Rhoda supported me from the NGOs she used to run. And Mervin started to build my practice, starting from the rubble of neglected files. This is how I met my future bosses, Dr Julius Makoni and Mr James Mushore both founders of NMB Bank. They were Mervin’s clients whose work was handled by Anthony.

Mervin let me tape into his rich network of clients. He let me grow and shine. He made me understand that a common sense approach to the resolution of legal disputes was the best approach. So I became a common sense lawyer first and foremost before unleashing my reserve of technical expertise. With that, I earned the love and respect of my clients.

I never charged my clients for hours spent on their cases. No. I charged for value delivered. I would push my cases to a stage where I could demonstrate some value delivered before I could render a fee note. Thus, it took time before I could bill for some cases. I would bill when I was sure that my clients would be happy to pay. I get annoyed with professionals who charge me for time, or who charge me what a tariff says. Be they architects, lawyers, accountants, engineers etc! I want to be charged for value actually delivered. If you want to have a happy clientele that would give you repeat business. Charge only for value delivered, not for the time spent on a matter.

Deciding to work under Mervin Immerman is one of the best carrier decisions I have ever made. Before two years were up, the partners of Kantor & Immerman kindly decided to offer Mr Addington Chinake and I a 5% partnership each. Earlier attempts to admit me first almost wrecked the firm. So the decision was deferred until we could both be admitted at the same time. So, before I was 26, I became a partner entitled to 5% of the drawings of the firm, before I could even pay for the 5%. A scheme was agreed whereby the 5% would be paid for from my drawings.

It’s not enough to earn. Money can easily flow away like a current. It is a currency after all. I was taught principles of saving by a friend and a colleague who was my junior at the firm, Nic Rudnick, the former CEO of Liquid telecoms and also a significant shareholder. He is a Jewish gentleman. And Jews are reputably wealthy. He said he started saving at least 25% of his receipts from when he was in school. He had bought his first car, a red Opel from his savings. He gave me my first practical driving lessons from his car.

[𝕊𝕠𝕝𝕒 ℂ𝕙𝕒𝕕 🎚️ @sola_chad]

More than half 👀