Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New listings
New media comments
New resources
New calendar events
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Calendar
New events
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Classifieds
New listings
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Disease & Pests
AFB plan review
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Welcome to NZ Beekeepers+
Would you like to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Sign up
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alastair" data-source="post: 5279" data-attributes="member: 13"><p>Just to explain my position a little further (on bureaucracy) a little thing I read in the NZ Herald a couple weeks ago.</p><p></p><p>A study was done to gauge the effectiveness of HR people vs bosses hiring based on their gut.</p><p></p><p>The HR people and hiring agencies go through a box ticking excersize ( at great cost ), checking the CV and making the person answer a bunch of questions designed probably by an expert on psychology to assess the person, will they fit with the corporate culture, what is their personality type, etc.</p><p>This was compared against bosses who do none of that, but talk with the interviewee, and make their own assessment of the person, based pretty much on their gut.</p><p></p><p>The two business types were identified, and the success rate of the people hired was measured after set time periods to see which hiring method got the best people.</p><p></p><p>The study found that the difference in successfully hiring the right people between the two methods was exactly - none. Both methods achieved the same measure of success. But one method looked a lot more impressive, with box ticking, jargon, cost, and butt covering.</p><p></p><p>I feel it might be the similar with the AFBPMP. We could institute some bloated and expensive management system that ticks all kinds of corporate boxes. But would it get better results? I highly doubt it. And in fact I would be prepared to put money on that. The work is not being done by a corporate management sytem of people in suits and ties being paid megabucks, and attending expensive training courses about management. It is being done by a team of actual beekeepers, and their immediate superiors. Down to earth people doing the actual work better than anyone else could, and for the most part (everything has an occasional exception ) doing a fine job.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alastair, post: 5279, member: 13"] Just to explain my position a little further (on bureaucracy) a little thing I read in the NZ Herald a couple weeks ago. A study was done to gauge the effectiveness of HR people vs bosses hiring based on their gut. The HR people and hiring agencies go through a box ticking excersize ( at great cost ), checking the CV and making the person answer a bunch of questions designed probably by an expert on psychology to assess the person, will they fit with the corporate culture, what is their personality type, etc. This was compared against bosses who do none of that, but talk with the interviewee, and make their own assessment of the person, based pretty much on their gut. The two business types were identified, and the success rate of the people hired was measured after set time periods to see which hiring method got the best people. The study found that the difference in successfully hiring the right people between the two methods was exactly - none. Both methods achieved the same measure of success. But one method looked a lot more impressive, with box ticking, jargon, cost, and butt covering. I feel it might be the similar with the AFBPMP. We could institute some bloated and expensive management system that ticks all kinds of corporate boxes. But would it get better results? I highly doubt it. And in fact I would be prepared to put money on that. The work is not being done by a corporate management sytem of people in suits and ties being paid megabucks, and attending expensive training courses about management. It is being done by a team of actual beekeepers, and their immediate superiors. Down to earth people doing the actual work better than anyone else could, and for the most part (everything has an occasional exception ) doing a fine job. [/QUOTE]
Verification
What type of honey is New Zealand famous for?
Post reply
Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Forums
New Zealand Beekeeping Disease & Pests
AFB plan review
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…