KEEPING YOUR JOB!


It has never been easier to lose your job and, surely, there is nothing you can do to dodge the redundancy bullet if it has your name on it?


Trainer and Conference Speaker Frank Newberry has been researching the criteria some turfcare sector employers seem to be using to determine who they might make redundant.


His conclusion? Well, Frank suggests that if you strip away the five biggest factors, i.e. job performance, skills, qualifications, conduct and discipline, you are left with what underpins the development of these attributes, which is your attitude and disposition.


Your positive attitude and willingness to be flexible, and to help out and support others, is valued highly when skills and abilities are equal amongst candidates for redundancy.


Frank’s research reinforces the advice he gives to his clients that both self-motivation and self-discipline are needed for success at work. One without the other is just not enough. Both need to be in place. Check out the facts (and the


feelings) and see for yourself.


I


was inspired to research this piece by Mike Gash’s article ‘Why Me?’ on page 122 of the June-July 2009 edition of this magazine. Understandably, Mike found it very hard going through the process of redundancy, hence his comment “losing a job is traumatic” and his choice of title: “Why Me?”.


Mike’s words got me thinking about the processes recession-hit employers might be tempted to use to decide who they will keep and who they will let go. I started my research by texting a very difficult question to a number of turfcare professionals in management positions. I also spoke to people in the industry who have been made redundant. I was pleased and gratified by the many and varied responses I received*.


What criteria might you use to decide who to make redundant?


My difficult question was: If you had to make one of two equally skilled groundsmen or greenkeepers redundant, who were on the same wage, were the same age, had been working for you for the same period and had identical future prospects - what criteria might you use to decide who to make redundant?’


Now, as was pointed out to me immediately, in reality, no two people are the same, but comparisons will always be an option to help inform a redundancy decision and, digressing for a moment, as Sir John Fortescue said over five hundred years ago: ‘Comparisons are odious’.


Comparisons continue, to this day, to cause strong, negative feelings within people. Why? Because someone usually ends up in a bad light compared to


someone else. When one person loses his/her job and another does not, no end of reassuring words can change just how rejected one person will be feeling for maybe a long time to come.


75% of men think that they are ‘better than’ 75% of other men


Digressing a little further, let me insert another issue that could have some impact in this currently male-dominated profession. There has been recent research that suggests that 75% of men think that they are ‘better than’ 75% of other men. Oh really? Yes, it is strange, but it could well be true.


Now, as we all know, only 25% can ever be better than 75% of any total, but what if most males have a natural feeling of superiority over other males? What will happen when their tranquility is disturbed by the prospect of a redundancy procedure?


Well, I would expect fragile egos to crack, anxiety levels to rise and confidence and work performance to suffer. It could be enough to make anyone the prime candidate for the redundancy!


Responses to my tricky question were prompt and varied


Returning to the research; responses to my tricky question were prompt and varied, ranging from the blunt instrument of ‘toss a coin’ to the sharper edge of the dreaded assessments, calculations and consultations.


Here then is a rundown of the criteria some turfcare employers are using to determine who goes and who stays in their job. These are divided into:


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138