Marlvin Jenami

[Chipo Dendere @drDendere]

As we’ve seen with the Jason Arday case being a journalist doesn’t give someone Carte blanche to be abusive and obsessive. Writing inconsistently about one individual is not a search for truth or democracy. It’s obsessive and can be quite cruel. At what point do you move on?

[Marlvin Jenami @marlvinjenami]

@Nas_tech_AI Send

[Selina @selinatasnim1]

All Paid Courses (Free for First 4500 People)

𝗣𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗙𝗥𝗘𝗘 (PART - 1)

1. Artificial Intelligence
2. Machine Learning
3. Cloud Computing
4. Ethical Hacking
5. Data Analytics
6. AWS Certified
7. Data Science
8. BIG DATA
9. Python
10. MBA

(72 Hours only )

To get-
1. Like & Retweet to get DM
2. Reply " All "

[Brian K goredema @briangoredema]

Losers explain and winners celebrate.

[Priyank Ahuja @ahuja_priyank]

14 top websites for free books.

🔖Bookmark for later

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

The Hidden Weakness of CV Based Shortlisting

Most organisations still rely on CVs as their first and sometimes main tool for shortlisting candidates. Yet the strongest scientific evidence shows that the things we focus on most, such as years of experience and years of education, are among the weakest predictors of job performance. Meta analyses covering thousands of candidates and many industries consistently show that pre hire experience predicts performance at very low levels, and years of education add even less. In simple terms, the information that dominates most CV screening tells you very little about who will perform in the role.

There is also the issue of consistency. When two recruiters review the same CVs, they often do not reach the same conclusion about who should be shortlisted. This is not because they lack skill. It is because CVs are unstructured, subjective, and open to different interpretations. One person focuses on job titles, another on qualifications, another on the layout or career progression. The result is inconsistent decisions based on information that has limited predictive power.

When you compare CV based screening to the strongest predictors of job performance such as cognitive ability, job knowledge, integrity, and validated personality traits, the difference is large. These scientifically proven predictors are several times more effective than anything you can extract from a CV. That is why leading organisations use CVs only to check basic eligibility and then rely on structured assessments that have real predictive value.

If you want to hire exceptional talent, reduce your dependence on what appears on paper and focus on what actually drives performance. The scientific evidence is clear. CVs can help you remove those who do not meet minimum requirements, but they cannot help you reliably identify the strongest performers. Organisations that shift from paper based screening to evidence based assessment make better hiring decisions and build stronger teams.

A more reliable alternative to CV shortlisting is the use of structured biodata forms. Biodata forms collect the same background information from every candidate in a consistent format, which removes subjectivity and improves fairness. When properly designed and validated, biodata forms have far stronger predictive power than CVs because they focus on factual life history information that is directly linked to job performance. They help you compare candidates using the same criteria, and create a more accurate shortlist.
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

I see many people confuse an Executive Assistant with an Executive Secretary or Personal Assistant, yet the differences are significant and worth understanding.

An Executive Secretary or Personal Assistant typically focuses on administrative and clerical support, managing diaries, scheduling meetings, handling correspondence, and ensuring logistical efficiency. Their primary role is to ensure the executive’s day runs smoothly by handling the details that enable productivity. It is an important role, but largely operational.

By contrast, an Executive Assistant operates at a higher strategic level. A strong Executive Assistant is a trusted partner to the executive, often acting as an extension of their thinking and decision making. They anticipate issues before they arise, manage priorities aligned to strategic goals, and may even represent the executive in certain meetings or communications. They understand the business context, can interpret data and reports, and often play a key role in preparing board or executive briefings.

In essence, while an Executive Secretary or Personal Assistant supports tasks, an Executive Assistant supports decisions. The former focuses on execution, while the latter focuses on enabling leadership effectiveness. Organizations that recognize this distinction position their Executive Assistants as strategic assets rather than administrative support. The best Executive Assistants amplify the impact of the executive they serve, not by doing more, but by helping the executive focus on what truly matters.

So, who should have an Executive Assistant? Typically, executives who operate at a strategic level, lead multiple functions, or manage complex portfolios benefit the most from having one.
@ipcconsultants

[Hopewell Chin’ono @daddyhope]

Congratulations mukoma @ignatiusmabasa 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
You truly deserve this!

[@obeyshava1 @obeyshava1]

What inspires this kind of thinking?
Mutoriro here? Iguka here?

[Ignatius T. Mabasa @ignatiusmabasa]

Join us for the launch of The Mad on 10 October 2025 at the National Gallery of Zimbabwe.

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

I keep noticing a casual approach to hiring, even at senior levels. Perhaps you can get away with it in low-impact roles, but across many organizations, it has become pervasive and costly. Leaders often cut corners during recruitment, only to spend years struggling with underperformance from the very people they hired. Hiring is not a routine administrative task. It is the single most important opportunity to shape the future of your organization.

The science of hiring is very clear. The strongest predictor of job performance is cognitive ability. You may not like that fact, but ignoring it does not change the reality. Add to that personality assessments and structured interviews, and you have a proven formula for consistently identifying high performers. Yet many leaders skip these steps.

Think about the employees who are currently struggling in your organization. Would those performance problems have been obvious if you had assessed them properly at entry? Probably. Cognitive ability and personality do not change significantly in adulthood. If someone does not have them, they never will. That is why screening at the door is non negotiable.

Hiring is your chance to fix your organization before problems ever begin. Be thorough. Be scientific. Because once you let the wrong person in, no amount of management effort will compensate for a hiring mistake that could have been prevented.
@ipcconsultants

[Ignatius T. Mabasa @ignatiusmabasa]

Yadhakwa

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

After 20 years of helping companies fix performance management systems, one pattern stands out more than any other: performance management starts with energy and promise… then fizzles out. Again and again. It’s like a movie we’ve all seen before—different company, same ending.

I’ve written before about the common reasons performance systems fail: no alignment with strategy, poor follow-through, vague goals, lack of accountability, and systems that are built for compliance rather than clarity.

But there’s one more big reason we don’t talk about enough: we make performance management unnecessarily complicated.

In many companies, what is called a “performance agreement” is actually just a heavy administrative burden. It’s full of long lists, unrelated activities, and pages of detail that confuse more than they clarify. The result? People disengage. Managers dread it. Employees see it as a tick-box exercise. And nothing changes.

This is why I still love the Balanced Scorecard—not just as a tool, but as a philosophy.

It forces clarity. It links actions to outcomes. It helps you tell a simple story: “If we do these things well, we’ll achieve these results.” Strategy becomes visible. Performance becomes meaningful. And yes—you can fit it all on one page.

Simplicity is not the enemy of performance. Complexity is.

If your performance management system is too difficult to explain on a single page—or to a new team member in 5 minutes—you don’t have a performance system. You have a reporting headache.

The test of a good performance system is not how impressive it looks in a PowerPoint deck. The test is whether it actually helps people focus, take action, and improve performance—consistently.

The best systems are simple, aligned, and built around cause and effect. And they work, not because they’re complex, but because they’re clear.
@ipcconsultants

[Memory Nguwi @memorynguwi]

As a compensation expert, I continue to caution boards and executive teams: if you fail to offer competitive pay for critical roles, you risk attracting individuals driven by desperation rather than capability. These roles—whether in finance, operations, technology, or governance— require a proven track record. Desperate candidates may be willing to accept low pay, but they often lack the depth, competence, or readiness to navigate the complexity and pressure these roles demand. The cost of placing the wrong person in a pivotal position is rarely immediate—but over time, the damage becomes visible in missed opportunities, poor decisions, and organizational performance decline.

Compensation is not merely a line item in the budget—it is a strategic signal. It communicates how much the organization values a role and the level of talent it seeks to attract. It suggests the organization either doesn’t understand the true value of the position or is not serious about performance. Talented professionals with options will simply walk away. As a result, leadership teams end up managing gaps—both in capability and impact—because they hired someone who could be afforded, not someone who could deliver.

Boards must reframe their thinking about compensation. Paying at or above market for mission-critical roles is not a luxury—it’s risk management. It's about protecting the organization’s future. The money saved by underpaying is often dwarfed by the downstream costs of poor performance, stalled execution, and crisis recovery. A high-performing organization is built on a strong talent philosophy, and getting the compensation equation right is one of the smartest strategic investments leadership can make.
@ipcconsultants