Phillip Nine Mafunga

Disciple of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and a door to door evangelist. A human resources practitioner and a social commentator.Unpublished poet.

[Scott Roberts @ScottRoberts]

A generation raised to follow its feelings will eventually lose its grip on reality.

Feelings change. Truth does not.

God's Word is the truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth.

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

@TheEconomist I see people are still focusing on generational differences when there is enough credible evidence showing they have no meaningful effect on work outcomes. Maybe you can start with this summary of available evidence: https://t.co/SRc52FwvUM

[Phillip Nine Mafunga @Phil_Mafunga]

https://t.co/KFMtHbFFcr

[Phillip Nine Mafunga @Phil_Mafunga]

BE A BLACK BOX
When geography tells control your location
When your terrain before your enemy smoothens
The perfect does not sell in the eyes of the cheap public
Yet fear the proxies of evil
The smart is in the open but opaque in thought
Incripted reality the dazzle

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

Job evaluation is the foundation of any defensible and equitable pay structure. Without it, pay decisions are subjective, inconsistent, and often unfair. Job evaluation is a systematic process for assessing the relative value of jobs within an organisation. Its purpose is simple: to determine which jobs are worth more than others based on the work itself, not on who is doing the work.

Through job evaluation, jobs are grouped into grades. Each grade contains jobs that are broadly equal in value to the organisation. These grades then become the backbone of a rational pay structure.

Several critical principles are often misunderstood.

First, job evaluation evaluates the job, not the job holder. It is not concerned with who occupies the role, how long they have been there, or how well they perform. It assesses the responsibilities, decision-making, complexity, accountability, and impact of the job.

Second, job evaluation does not assess ability or performance. A high performer and a poor performer doing the same job will still fall into the same grade. Performance should be rewarded through performance management, incentives, or bonuses, not through manipulating job grades.

One of the biggest risks in job evaluation is the use of poor job descriptions. If the job description is unclear, outdated, or inaccurate, the evaluation outcome will be flawed. Garbage in leads to garbage out. This is why job evaluation exercises often fail before they even begin.

A related problem is job inflation. When employees know that job descriptions are being prepared for evaluation, there is a strong temptation to exaggerate responsibilities, decision authority, or scope. This behaviour is common and predictable. Without strong controls, interviews, and verification, inflated roles can easily end up overgraded.

The opposite problem also occurs. Some jobs are underrepresented. These jobs may be poorly articulated and end up in lower grades than they deserve, creating silent inequities that persist for years.

When jobs are overgraded or undergraded, pay equity is immediately compromised. People end up earning more or less than the true value of their work. Over time, this creates resentment and morale problems. Pay inequity rarely stays hidden forever.

For these reasons, using external grading consultants is often a better option than relying solely on internal grading committees. Internal committees frequently struggle to separate the job from the person, especially when they know the individuals involved. Even with training, bias and organisational politics are hard to eliminate.

Once the job evaluation is complete, the next logical step is pay structuring. This involves translating grades into a salary structure, showing the minimum, midpoint, and maximum salary for each grade. This structure provides clear rules for setting starting pay, managing progression, and controlling pay growth.

A job evaluation exercise that ends without a pay structure is largely pointless. You may have neat grades on paper, but without salary ranges, managers will continue to make arbitrary pay decisions.

Finally, any pay structure must meet three tests. It must be competitive enough to attract and retain the right talent. It must be affordable within the organisation’s financial reality. And it must be sustainable over time, not something that collapses under cost pressure or constant exceptions.

When done properly, it brings discipline, fairness, and credibility to how people are paid. Done poorly, it simply formalises inequality.
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

I have spent time studying why some boards oversee organisations that grow and last, while others preside over slow decline or outright failure. One clear pattern stands out. Effective boards are not always comfortable boards. They allow disagreement. They usually include a few members who are willing to speak up early when things start going wrong, rather than staying silent to preserve harmony.

From experience, these boards are also careful about who they appoint into the executive team. They understand that poor executive appointments, especially the wrong Chief Executive Officer, carry long-term consequences. Decisions made at this level shape strategy, culture, and performance for years. Once the wrong people are in place, recovery becomes difficult and costly.

Another important point is that technical expertise alone is not enough. Boards need members with courage, sound judgement, intellectual humility, and integrity. People who can challenge assumptions, listen to evidence, admit when they are wrong, and still hold firm on matters that matter. A board made up only of polite or compliant members adds limited value.

I often ask a simple question in board discussions. If the board were removed today, would the organisation be noticeably worse off? If the honest answer is no, then there may be weaknesses in how the board is structured or how it operates. When a board is doing its job properly, its contribution is visible in the quality of decisions and the direction of the organisation.

@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

Many people think high school performance is mainly about how intelligent a student is. Research shows it is not that simple. Large reviews of hundreds of studies, covering more than 400,000 students, show that personality matters a lot, especially conscientiousness. This trait is about being organised, disciplined, and finishing what you start.

At high school level, conscientiousness has a link with grades of about 0.21 to 0.23, which is almost as strong as the link between intelligence and grades. Even when intelligence is taken into account, conscientiousness still predicts who performs better. This explains why two students who are equally bright can end up with very different results.

The same research shows that intelligence sets potential, but personality determines whether that potential is used. When intelligence and personality are looked at together, they explain almost 30 percent of the differences in school performance.

Other traits also play a role, but in smaller ways. Students who handle stress better tend to perform better in exams.

Curiosity helps more in reading and language subjects than in maths and science.

Being very social does not help much in exam-heavy systems.

The message is simple. Focusing only on intelligence is not enough.
Teaching students basic habits like planning, completing tasks, and sticking to routines is one of the most reliable ways to improve academic performance.
@IPCCareerCentre

[poemsbyalexis @poemsbyalexis]

a heart of stone, so cold and still
the lord will shape to match his will
from rigid rock to tender flesh
he breathes new life, our spirits fresh

the past dissolves, the shadows flee
his hands create what eyes can't see
a pulse of hope, a warmth inside
where once only despair could reside

he fills the hollow, mends the cracks
his love restores what fear attacks
our souls arise, reborn, made new
and every breath becomes a view

i write for those that
let god remake
what was once opaque

[poemsbyalexis @poemsbyalexis]

a heart once cold, hard as stone
cracked beneath the weight of years
yet a voice speaks
soft, unwavering

i will give you flesh
warm, tender, alive
i will breathe spirit
where emptiness once dwelled

old fear dissolves like morning mist
the soul stretches, awakened
to hope, to love, to life renewed
every beat a testament
to grace unfolding quietly
within the chest

i write for those who
seek the pulse of god
and find it within

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

I understand why parents want good careers for their children. That desire is natural. The problem starts when parents replace evidence with their own aspirations. Subject choices should not be driven by what a parent wishes their child could do, but by clear evidence of what the child is actually capable of doing and what they are not. This mistake is avoidable, yet I see it repeated year after year. Parents make A Level subject choices for children without asking a simple question: does my child have the natural ability required for these subjects?

A Level is a narrowing point. It is not just another school phase. It is a filtering stage that significantly shapes what a child can study later and, by extension, the kinds of careers realistically open to them. At this level, effort alone is no longer enough. Subjects like Mathematics, Physics, Accounting, or Chemistry demand specific abilities such as numerical reasoning, abstract reasoning, spatial ability, or analytical thinking. When a child lacks the underlying aptitude, no amount of pressure, extra lessons, or motivation speeches will change the outcome. The result is predictable: poor results, failure to reach university entry points, and a painful two-year setback that could have been avoided.

I have worked with many parents who came for career assessments and later expressed genuine relief. They appreciated having objective evidence that clarified their child’s strengths and limits, and it allowed them to give realistic, supportive guidance. I have also had parents openly admit they came too late, after the damage was already done. Your children are on holiday right now. This is the best possible time to assess their natural strengths, before irreversible choices are made. Use evidence, not hope, to guide your advice. It is one of the most responsible decisions a parent can make.
@IPCCareerCentre
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

The fact that people who look highly qualified and experienced on paper still fail to deliver is proof that qualifications and years of experience do not drive job performance. What drives performance is cognitive ability, the right personality traits, usable job knowledge, and integrity. Without these, qualifications and experience are largely irrelevant.
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

Based on my experience serving on boards, I have not seen any particular professional background consistently stand out in terms of board contribution. What makes the real difference is not where someone comes from professionally, but who they are as a person.

I have seen “experts,” based purely on their profiles and qualifications, add very little value because they lack the courage to question, challenge, and put uncomfortable issues on the table. Profile and credentials alone do not improve governance.

The same applies to board chairs. Across boards, no single profession consistently produces better chairs than others. What separates effective chairs from weak ones is character, judgment, independence of mind, and the ability to manage power and conflict in the room.

In my experience, boards rise or fall on character far more than on credentials.

What has your experience been?
@ipcconsultants

[Jaynit @jaynitx]

Steve Jobs explained how John Sculley destroyed Apple by thinking a 'great idea' was 90% of the work:

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

Hiring is not a gamble—it’s a business-critical decision. Yet, many hiring managers still take chances by relying heavily on referrals or unstructured interviews. An unstructured interview is one where there are no consistent questions, no clear evaluation criteria, and no reliable way to compare candidates. It often feels like a conversation rather than a serious assessment. That’s why it becomes more of a guessing game than a methodical selection process. And when you guess wrong, the cost is more than just a bad hire—it’s time, productivity, morale, and ultimately the success of your business.

The science on this is crystal clear. To improve your hiring accuracy, you must assess cognitive ability (how well someone solves problems and learns new things) and personality (how someone behaves and fits into your team culture). These are strong predictors of job performance—far better than relying on gut feeling or a friendly referral. And here's what matters most: do not start with interviews and then bring in psychometric assessments as an afterthought. The most effective process starts with reliable psychometric testing to filter the best-fit candidates, followed by structured interviews that ask all candidates the same questions and evaluate them with clear, consistent scoring.

This message is for every hiring manager out there. Hiring friends, acquaintances, or people you simply 'like' can feel comfortable, but comfort doesn’t drive performance. When performance falters, friendship won’t save you. Building high-performing teams means putting in place a hiring process rooted in evidence, not hope. Make every hire count—your business depends on it.
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

Why a Good Board Chair Makes All the Difference

I’ve sat on boards led by both strong and weak chairs, and the contrast is striking. A good chair doesn't try to be the smartest person in the room—they focus on drawing out the best thinking from everyone else. They listen carefully, create space for all members to speak, and guide discussions without dominating them. When a chair leads with openness and humility, the board becomes more engaged, thoughtful, and effective.

Some board members I’ve spoken to feel more like subordinates than peers, simply because of how their chair behaves. That’s a clear warning sign. A chair is not the boss of the board—they are its facilitator. Their job is to help the board think clearly, make decisions together, and stay focused on what really matters. When a chair starts to control the conversation or push decisions through without discussion, the board loses its independence and value.

The best chairs don’t make decisions on behalf of the board—they help the board reach decisions together and then communicate those decisions with clarity and unity. A good chair knows that power doesn’t come from speaking the most or having the final say. It comes from creating the conditions for collective wisdom to emerge. And that’s what truly drives a board’s success.@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

One pattern I keep noticing across organizations is the lack of regular workload analysis to assess employee utilization. Many businesses continue operating on outdated assumptions about staffing needs. When roles were first filled, they were aligned to a specific business environment. But with advances in technology, automation, and shifts in market demand, the nature and volume of work often change—yet headcount stays the same. This creates a silent but costly inefficiency: people are on the payroll but not fully utilized.

In all the workload analysis projects I’ve handled, I’ve consistently found underutilization—sometimes shockingly low. In several cases, employees were active for less than 25% of their day, spending the rest of the time idle or attending to personal matters. What’s more concerning is that many managers instinctively respond to operational challenges by calling for more hires. But hiring more people isn’t the solution if the root problem is misaligned capacity or poor workload distribution. In one assignment, we found an organization that had more than enough people on paper, but their actual capacity to deliver the work was lacking—not due to qualifications, but due to a gap in cognitive capacity—the ability to think, reason, and solve problems effectively, which research shows is the strongest predictor of job performance.

That’s why I believe every organization should conduct a thorough workload analysis every 2 to 3 years. This is not just about cutting costs—it’s about aligning your people to where they can deliver the most value. If resources allow, go beyond the usual skills audit and assess individual cognitive capacity—not just whether someone has the qualifications or years of experience. Businesses that embrace this discipline will see sharper productivity, smarter resource allocation, and a healthier bottom line.@ipcconsultants

[HRD Australia @HRDAustralia]

Settlement negotiations can quickly unravel when a worker refuses to sign the deed despite accepting the offer, complicating resolution efforts.

https://t.co/j2zflBlgVq

#HRNews #EmploymentLaw #SettlementNegotiations #WorkplaceDisputes

[Scott Roberts @ScottRoberts]

Good people do not go to heaven.
Saved people go to heaven.

Trust in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins.

[Oliver Burdick @oliverburdick]

Most people who hate the Bible don’t even know what it says.