Search Results

The intervention by the Court to suspend a picket is a big hurdle to cross. The suggestion by the Court of contempt of Court proceeding on an urgent basis seems to be the way to go. Clover SA (Pty) Ltd v General Industries Workers Union of South Africa and others . The Labour Court (LC) ordered the union and employees to comply with picketing rules set by the CCMA and were further interdicted from committing violent acts during a protected strike. Section 69(2) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) instructs the Court to intervene and grant urgent relief either by suspending the rules or by varying them. The Court found that an order suspending the right to picket should not be granted lightly and the onus rests on the employer to prove that this action is necessary. The employer’s concern was warranted by the intervention of the EFF, a member of which had made inflammatory comments in a speech to strikers in the picketing area. This single incident was not enough to justify suspending the strikers’ right to picket peacefully. The Court found that contempt of court proceedings would have been better suited to enforce compliance with the picketing rules, which would have formed an adequate alternative remedy to the present application. There was nothing to indicate that the picketing rules themselves were inadequate. The employer had, accordingly, failed to make out a case for a variation or suspension of the picketing rules. The application was dismissed.

The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), No. 130 of 1993, allows employees to claim compensation if an employee is disabled or disabled as a result of an occupational injury or disease/s that happen while performing their job. You must register with COIDA All employers need to be registered with the Compensation Fund which is the fund that administers COID claims. Once registered,  the employer will need to make contributions for the Fund. What is ‘work’ according to COIDA? This is not as clear as it might seem in De Gee v Transnet SOC Ltd (30085/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 2, the High Court had the opportunity to consider when an occupational injury can be said to have occurred during the course, and scope of an employee’s employment for purposes of COIDA. De Gee was an executive support manager and injured his lumbar spine when the lift he was traveling in fell approximately seven floors. He was using the lift to gain access to his office situated on the 48th floor of his employer’s building. The court laid out the following guidelines to determine whether the employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment when the injury occurred: An employee is acting in the course of his employment when he is doing something he was employed to do. Where an employee is traveling to or from work, the journey is dis-associated from the employee’s employment unless the employee is fulfilling an obligation imposed by the contract of employment. An employee does not start working until he has reached his work unless – at the time the injury occurred – the employee was doing something in the discharge of his duty towards his employer. After an employee has finished his work for the day and has started his way home, his employment continues while navigating the premises. Once an employee reaches a place of public access, his status as a worker is removed and he becomes a member of the general public. An employee may be deemed to be working while traveling to work if he is required to follow a prescribed route or is required to use a prescribed means of transport. In all cases where an employee – in going to or leaving – work suffers an accident on the way, the first question to be determined is whether an employee was at the place where the accident occurred by virtue of his employment or if as a member of the public. The court concluded that, based on the evidence before it, there was insufficient proof to determine whether at the time of the incident, the employee was acting in the course and scope of his employment. On this basis, the court found that the employee’s claim was not covered by COIDA. How does COIDA determine ‘disablement’? COIDA defines ‘disablement’ as follows: “temporary partial disablement, temporary total disablement, permanent disablement or serious disfigurement, as the case may be” From the above definition, it can be inferred that an employee may claim compensation in terms of COIDA if he is no longer able to work because he or she has been disabled as a result of occupational injuries or disease sustained while performing his or her job. Alternatively, the employee may claim benefits should he or she be off work for a period of time due to the disabling effect of the occupational injuries or diseases but be in a position to return to work after a time. Can relatives of a deceased employee claim COIDA benefits? If one of your employees dies as a result of an occupational disease or injury, a relative may claim the employee’s benefits. These relatives include: A widow or widower who, when the employee passed away, was married to the employee according to civil law, indigenous law, or custom. (The latter two options are only valid should the employee or his widow not have been part of another, pre-existing civil marriage.) Alternatively, if there was no marriage – but the widow/widower was living with the employee at the time as if they were husband and wife – the surviving partner is entitled to claim the COIDA benefits. A child – of the employee or of his/her spouse of a previous marriage – who is under 18. These children may include a: –   Child born after the death of the employee, – Stepchild, –  Adopted child, or –  Child born out of wedlock. A parent or another person who, as far as the Director-General is concerned – was acting in the role of a parent and was either wholly or partly financially dependent on the employee when he or she died. A sibling or half-sibling of the employee. A grandchild of the employee. As stated above, as an employer it is your legal duty to be registered with the Compensation Fund and pay over the contributions to the Fund. It is thus imperative for you and your HR department to know when a claim may be lodged so that this information can be disseminated properly to your employees.

Employee Wellness Programme- Employee Wellness starts with individual buy-in.  You can have the most amazing Employee Wellness Programme (EWP) but if employees don’t use it, they will not benefit from it and if none of your employees support it, it will not be successful. My suggestion would be to first identify the most critical needs.  Consult employees to get their input.  Find out what challenges they are facing and what their needs are.  Some individuals may be reluctant to speak in a group situation but will feel more comfortable participating in an (anonymous) online survey or answering questions that are then placed in a suggestion-type box.  When engaging with employees, use creative words that will encourage them to participate. Once you’ve identified the needs, start with short repetitive awareness campaigns to which individuals can relate and feel encouraged to support. It is also important that, if employers are (for example) promoting a healthy lifestyle, they need to walk the talk.  The management team needs to lead by example.  The business cannot focus on healthy eating habits in its awareness campaigns but then the canteen only sells hamburgers and fried fish and chips and when it hosts staff events it is all fast food.  Also, consider the different cultures within the organisation and their possible diet restrictions (including the timing of events). If employees feel that the management team and colleagues are not supporting the Employee Wellness Programme or their individual needs have not been considered, they too will be less inclined to support such a programme. It’s also important to remember that every employee is unique and a one-size-fits-all approach will not be as effective as a multi-faceted or customised approach. How to Create Happy Employees  The bottom line is that you can’t. Individual wellness starts with a changed mindset.  But you can plant the seeds and provide an environment that is conducive to such change. Adults must accept responsibility for their own wellness and if they are serious about it, they will embrace the opportunity provided by their employer to make positive changes to their current environment or how they respond to it. Individuals are responsible for taking care of their own bodies and that starts with healthier food choices, drinking more water, getting regular exercise, and protecting their personal time by learning to say no. Many experts suggest that the best way to start this Employee Wellness Programme is to create practical and simple habits by starting small, with simple routines, and then – once they’ve mastered those – add more.

Disciplinary Hearings in the Workplace Disciplinary Hearings In The Workplace- On 22 July 2010 an employee was charged with four counts of misconduct by the Eastern Cape Department of Education (Department) for awarding a service contract to her spouse’s company without the required approval and consent of her employer. The service contract was awarded to her spouse’s company in accordance with the required procedure. However, she did not receive permission from the Head of Department to make the award. The disciplinary hearing was scheduled for 12 August 2010 but only happened on 30 March 2011. On 22 June 2011, the Department informed the employee that she had been found guilty of two of the four charges brought against her and that she would be dismissed. She appealed in terms of section 8(4) of the Employment of Educators Act (EEA) which provides that a sanction may not be implemented pending the outcome of an appeal. Eventually, she was advised that her appeal was unsuccessful, on 14 February 2014, and she was dismissed. On 4 August 2014, an arbitrator found the dismissal was substantively fair as her misconduct seriously and negatively impacted the trust relationship between the employee and employer. The arbitrator’s award did not deal with procedural fairness. The employee approached the Labour Court to have the award reviewed and set aside. The Labour Court upheld the award. The Court refused leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal in the Labour Appeal Court was also not successful. On petition to the Constitutional  Court, the employee submitted that the delay was an unexplained and unjustified departure from the Department’s internal disciplinary procedure. The Court held that the arbitrator was reasonable in finding that the employee’s dismissal was substantively fair. The court did find it necessary to determine if the dismissal was procedurally fair. The Court held that both the EEA and the Labour Relations Act (LRA) provide that discipline should be prompt and fair and that the disciplinary proceedings must be concluded in the shortest possible timeframe. The Court held that if an employee is retained for an extended period after the institution of disciplinary action, it may indicate that the employment relationship has not broken down. The Court therefore held that the delay did indeed render the employee’s dismissal procedurally unfair and that the matter must be remitted to the Labour Court as a specialist court for an appropriate remedy for the procedural unfairness to be determined, by that Court, as a matter of priority.

Until the end of the Third Industrial Revolution, the workplace was characterised by linear change and occasional episodes of disruption. It was the heyday of the professional manager who thrived in an environment of command and control. This manager was the epicentre of knowledge and decision-making. There was no real need for creativity and externally driven focus. “Executives and managers were seen to be mutual admiration societies where ‘he who shouts the loudest’ held the floor,” says John Botha : COO of Global Business Solutions. “Listening, empathising and challenging well-established norms were not tolerated and for decades businesses survived – and often thrived – despite themselves.”  The Disruptive Effect Of The Fourth Industrial Revolution Enter the disruption of the Fourth Industrial Revolution through digitisation and, of course, biological pandemics. Numerous organisations that had been trading for decades – and even centuries – were now often unsure of how to pivot, re-engineer, and (most importantly) unsure of how to transform their businesses.  “Perhaps this should be re-stated,” continues Botha. "You cannot transform a business. You can only rely on the people in the business to contribute to the transformation of the business. Where there is no trust, there is cost creep, resistance, suspicion, attrition, and stress. Where there is trust, there is greater output, morale, innovation, retention, and revenue." A Blend Of Leadership And Management Is Necessary Simon Sinek explains this vital blend of leadership and management by saying that “leaders take care of the people in their charge, managers take charge of the people in their care”. In a highly disruptive and uncertain environment, both these ingredients are crucial.  The challenge is, however, that people who perform well in their jobs are often promoted because they perform well in their jobs. However, now they are no longer responsible for the job but rather for the people in the job. This competency gap is one of the most under-addressed ones and requires significant attention.  Without the ability to connect with staff, understanding how they are “wired” and focusing just on getting the task done does not build trust. Staff may be reluctant to raise concerns, fears, or areas of improvement and over time they become disconnected from the company of “professional managers”. How Does This Blend Of Leadership And Management Impact Building High-Performance Teams? Over-empathising and connection (i.e. disproportionate focus on nurturing staff) can result in complacency and low performance. Overbearing management bias can also result in disconnected and disengaged staff as well as an environment of fear and silence. Says Botha: “In disruptive times, silence is not a good sign and nor is non-performance. High-performance teams are mostly characterised by a culture of both nurture and strong management, with the ability of those in charge to have courageous conversations when required but also to empathise and nurture when required. This builds trust.” This person has to aim to achieve two ultimate objectives – sound character and relevant competence. The journey, however, never ends. Franklin Covey’s smart trust philosophy hits the mark here as selecting smart Trust will allow you to operate with high-trust in a low-trust, as well as an unpredictable marketplace. The more unpredictable it becomes, the more your sound judgment and ability to trust in this low-trust world will allow you a tremendous competitive advantage — as well as the capacity to navigate the uncertainty that low trust creates. The starting point is to ask yourself whether your leaders have the desire to want to be human-centric in addition to being operationally exceptional. If the desire is present, then the next step is to take the leaders on a journey of personal awareness, personal leadership, and leadership of others as well as leaders of teams and organisations. This should be followed by human-centric strategy design using approaches that harness empathy (such as Design-thinking) and then selecting a few “big-ticket” business challenges to focus on solving.

The issue of mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations in the workplace has been a contentious issue ever since it was first introduced in the Covid Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Direction in terms of the Disaster Management Act. The debate continued with corporations such as Discovery implementing compulsory vaccination policies. Something very much at the top of employers’ minds was whether compelling their employees to have Covid vaccinations strayed into the territory of unfair discrimination. Two awards, which have come out of the CCMA recently, say that you are perfectly entitled to introduce such a policy and, if you have an employee who point-blank refuses to get the vaccine you are perfectly within your rights to ultimately dismiss this employee. Let’s take a closer look. A Person Refusing A Vaccine May Be Declared Permanently Incompetent In the award between Theresa Mulderij and The Goldrush Group: The company adopted a mandatory vaccination policy after observing all good governance protocols such as consulting with the unions and conducting the required risk assessments. As part of this policy, employees were able to apply for an exemption from this policy. The employee refused to have the vaccination on various grounds, such as having the vaccine would be against her right to bodily and psychological harm. In addition, the employee pointed out that the World Health Organization (WHO) had said that the vaccination does not prevent the transmission of Covid but should you contract the disease your symptoms would be less severe. Thus she questioned the validity of the compulsory vaccination policy. The Commissioner felt that the employee’s refusal to take the vaccine had rendered her permanently incapacitated. He ruled in the company’s favour. Suspending An Anti-Vaxxer Employee Is Not An Unfair Labour Practice In the award between Gideon Kok and Ndaka Security and Services: The employer supplies outsourced security and services to clients. One of these was Sasol at whose premises the employee was stationed. Sasol had a 100% mandatory vaccination policy and extended these requirements to all sub-contractors and the like who regularly accessed their premises. The employer had a mandatory vaccination policy. Alternatively, employees who elected not to have a vaccination would still be permitted on site should they present a weekly negative COVID-19 result at the employee’s cost. However, once Sasol had extended their policy – as described above – the employer was forced to deactivate the employee’s access card with immediate effect pending on him getting vaccinated. In effect, the employee was suspended without pay. The employee alleged that the employer had committed an unfair labour practice by suspending him. He felt that he would not contract the disease as his natural immunity would protect him. In the Labour Relations Act (LRA) it is stated that suspension may be precautionary or punitive. In addition, there is nothing in the LRA which states that suspension may only be levied in the case of a dismissal. The Commissioner ruled that the employee’s suspension was not an unfair labour practice. These cases support the view that the Constitution and the OHS Direction allow employers to implement compulsory vaccination policies based on their operational requirements and obligations under the OHS Act. The OHS Act requires employers to protect employees' health and safety and this is one of the measures that need to be analysed (risk assessment) and considered.

In recent times the role of the whistle-blower has come to the forefront when it comes to arbitrations as well as disciplinary action in the workplace. As companies look at ensuring they clean up their act and reinforce the fact there is no room for corruption in the workplace, a number of them have launched whistle-blowing hotlines so that an environment is created where people feel comfortable that their identity will be protected when they make a protected disclosure. What Is A Protected Disclosure? To qualify as a protected disclosure, one has to look at whether the behaviour amounts to disclosure as well as whether this would fall within the realm of a protected disclosure. Disclosure means any disclosure of information regarding any conduct of an employer, or an employee of that employer, made by any employee who has reason to believe that the information concerned shows or tends to show one or more of the following: a) That a criminal offense has been committed, is being committed, or is likely to be committed; b) That a person has failed, is failing, or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which that person is subject; c) That a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring, or is likely to occur; d) That the health and safety of an individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered; e) That the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged; f) Unfair discrimination as contemplated in the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 (Act 4 of 2000); or g) That any matter referred to in paragraph (a) to (f) has been, is being, or is likely to be deliberately concealed. Protected disclosure means a disclosure made to: a) A legal advisor in accordance with section 5; b) An employer in accordance with section 6; c) A member of Cabinet or of the Executive Council of a province in accordance with section 7; d) A person or body in accordance with section 8; e) Any other person or body in accordance with section 9 but does not include a disclosure – i. In respect of which the employee concerned commits an offense by making that disclosure; or ii. Made by a legal adviser to whom the information concerned was disclosed in terms of obtaining legal advice in accordance with section 5. Organisations continuously attempt to address corruption and other illegal activities through various mechanisms, including putting these whistle-blowing processes in place. Experience shows a number of challenges that do arise from this. How To Create The Right Environment For Whistle-Blowing The Code of Good Practice booklet provides a good explanation around this and rather than re-invent the wheels, I shall quote from this: Creating a considered and detailed whistle-blowing policy is a first and necessary step for ensuring the right environment throughout an organisation and is a legal obligation in terms of the PDA. In constructing a policy, employers should consult employees and their trade union representatives to create a policy and establish procedures that will enable employees and management to raise concerns about wrongdoing. Employees and workers should be confident that their allegations will be taken seriously, that any wrongdoing that is unearthed will be dealt with, and that any persons involved whether directly or indirectly in covering up wrongdoing, will be called to account and, where appropriate, be required to reimburse the employer for undue benefits that they have received. It is important for employers to encourage employees to raise concerns that are honest even if they are mistaken. There is also a legal obligation for employers to take reasonable steps to ensure employees and workers know about the policy. Outside of a policy, it is important that all levels of management and staff speak about whistle-blowing in a language that acknowledges how useful, and vital, authentic dissent can be for an organisation. Whistle-blowers need to be understood as compatriots, who actively contribute to an effective and innovative environment. Perhaps most practically, employers , especially those in the public sector, must allocate sufficient and appropriate resources for the purpose of receiving protected disclosures. What should the Company do when Receiving a Disclosure? Again the code of good practice provides us with the following guidelines. “As mentioned earlier, if it has been requested, you should do everything you can to keep the identity of the whistle-blower confidential. You should also follow up and investigate the complaint as soon as possible or refer the complaint to someone best placed to investigate. Throughout this time, you must keep the whistle-blower aware of what actions are being taken. The PDA creates very specific rules about your obligations to inform the employee or worker of what steps to are being taken in section 38. If serious wrongdoing is revealed, the employer should take appropriate measures, including criminal and civil proceedings to recover losses that have been incurred. This is not only for financial recovery reasons – the act of following up ensures other employees that their disclosures won’t be made in vain. Particular efforts should be made to take direct action against anybody who may try and victimize the whistle-blower at work.” How do we go about Dealing with the Issue, Protecting the Identity of the Alleged Whistle-Blower, and Making Certain that the Whistle-Blower is Not in any way Exposed to any Occupational Detriment? Here particularly the Act is clear that no whistle-blower should be exposed to any occupational detriment and if they are, there could be severe consequences for those who do expose the whistle-blower to occupational detriment. Without quoting from the Act, the remedies include the fact that the courts, including the labour court, can be approached for appropriate relief or the whistle-blower can pursue any other process allowed or prescribed by any law. For the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, this would include, potentially, a case of an automatically unfair dismissal or an unfair labour practice. Employers would be well placed to protect the identity of the witness as far as possible and consider whether it would be appropriate to have an in-camera process where the identity of the witness is protected, alternatively put measures in place such as the suspension on full pay of the alleged accused, etc. to limit the risk of an occupational detriment. What if there is an Abuse of the Whistle-Blowing Hotline? The flip side of this is that people use the whistle-blowing hotline with mala fides (in bad faith). If this is established and you can identify the whistle-blower then no doubt disciplinary action can be taken against the whistle-blower for abuse of company process. The disciplinary action would flow from the abuse of the processes that are there to assist employees. Whilst a whistle-blowing hotline provides the necessary support to organisations to be able to have issues raised without fear of victimisation and to weed dishonesty and corrupt activities, no doubt this does prove challenging for organisations as has been found in my experience in disciplinary inquiries as well as arbitrations. It would be well placed for training to be provided to ensure that parties know how to use the whistle-blowing hotline and the purpose thereof as well as when they receive protection in terms of making a protected disclosure. In addition, thereto, it assists organisations in reacting, and conducting investigations properly, and leads to efficient management of such whistle-blowing reports. We have over the years assisted organisations with the investigations flowing from whistle-blowing reports as well as advice in respect of the management of complaints and/or the abuse of process. Why not contact us should you be having issues or be considering introducing a whistle-blowing hotline, the team and I would be able to assist you with our years of experience in this space and advise you accordingly sharing lessons learned from previous engagements. Let us help you through this rocky terrain and provide you with a steady hand in your process. Email me at grant@globalbusiness.co.za to get in touch. Our team can investigate, initiate, or chair disciplinary inquiry processes and assist with arbitrations flowing from these processes. We thank our clients for their continuous support and look forward to providing assistance going forward.

Written appointment of the Information Officer (IO) unless it is the Chief Executive in which case the appointment is automatic by law. Also, appoint Deputy IOs if you believe this is necessary. Register the IO and DIO on the Information Regulator (IR) website and get your certificate of registration. Draft/ update your POPI policy and practice manual. Draft an Incident Response Plan (i.e. a plan that explains what happens if the Personal Information (PI) under your or your “operator’s” management and control is compromised). Draft/update your Privacy Policy for your website and business. Set up training sessions for your managers and staff who process PI and at the training ensure that: (i) you have an attendance register. (ii) you have them sign the Annexure to the Employment Contract on POPI, and (iii) you hand out the POPI policy for their reference. Ensure your s51 PAIA manual is crafted and posted on your website. Identify all “operators” as defined and ensure you enter into/obtain their contractual terms relating to POPI. Remember at least two matters must be addressed in that POPI contract with the “operator”: (i) the operator must warrant that it complies with POPI and related PI statutes, and(ii) that it will immediately advise you if the information you provided to the operator is compromised whilst in the hands of the operator. This is because YOU will have to report the data breach to the Regulator and contact the impacted data subjects. Data subject participation: Remember that ALL previous, current, and past suppliers, employees, and clients/ customers have the right under POPI to participate in their data which basically means they must have a simple and effective channel (recorded by the employer) that allows them to contact the IO/ DIO to request UPDATE, DELETION, DESTRUCTION, OBJECTION, COMPLAINS, OPTING IN (for e-marketing purposes). Remember that from 1 July 2021, all new data subjects must give their permission for e- direct marketing before you send out marketing collateral. I highly recommend you list all systems, tech, and programmes you use and have your IT department give written assurance that all is in order – firewalls, anti-virus, user access, back-ups, encryption, etc. Finally, an impact assessment matrix requires each function to identify processes that they engage in that process PI and then to ensure the systems and staff conduct is up to scratch. If any PI is sent outside of SA borders, Special PI is dealt with or under 18-year data subjects that the necessary POPI provisions are complied with. If you have any questions about the above, please contact John Botha at john@globalbusiness.co.za.

In Mzolo v Rhodes Employer and another – (2020) 30 ECG 1.13.6 a law lecturer was charged with sexual harassment and falsely accusing the employer of racism. An outside Chairperson found the lecturer – in a disciplinary hearing – not guilty of sexual harassment but guilty on the second charge and issued a final written warning. The employer regarded the finding and sanction as unacceptable and took the view that the disciplinary hearing had been plagued with irregularities attributable to the Chairperson. The employer accordingly launched internal review proceedings, asking the internal review body to set aside the Chairperson’s finding and sanction and to substitute for it a finding that the employee was guilty. In response, the employee launched an urgent application for an order that the internal review be declared a breach of his employment contract and void ab initio. The Court found that the question of urgency had to be evaluated against the dealings between the parties since the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings. The employee had not complied with the rule which requires those seeking urgent relief to explicitly set out the circumstances which render a matter urgent. He was seeking final relief and had not adequately explained why he could not obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The employee had also chosen to refer the matter to the CCMA before approaching the High Court. Forum shopping of this nature was to be discouraged. The urgency was, accordingly, self-created. The application had to fail for want of urgency. The Court held further that the legality of the pending internal review proceedings was an issue arising from the employee’s contractual entitlements. In addition, the Court found that although the University’s Disciplinary Code did not cater to an internal review process, the policy that provided for review in sexual harassment cases was in line with existing case authority and in harmony with the Disciplinary Code and the Labour Relations Act (LRA). The employer had demonstrated on the papers why it considered the Chairperson’s factual findings and sanction so grossly unreasonable, inappropriate, and shocking that it justified interference. The Code did not prohibit the Vice-Chancellor from resorting to an internal review process. The employee would not be prejudiced by that process, because he could still raise any objections he might have before the review committee. The application was dismissed with costs. Urgency cannot be self-created. Further, Codes and Procedures should cater for a review or possibly overturning sanctions that are not in line with normal practice. Attend the Year Labour Law Update & Discover More about Disciplinary Hearings If you are keen on learning more about disciplinary hearings, as well as other case law that is relevant to HR, then you need to attend our next Labour Law Update.

There were businesses in the 3IR that managed to trade and grow for decades in a relatively constant trading environment where the “bell curve” demonstrated the pace of change. Many of these organisations are no longer around and the question that begs to be answered is whether there is a golden thread that underpins whether businesses will be beneficiaries or casualties in a disruptive environment. A deep dive into many case studies – such as Blockbuster, Kodak, and Nokia as well as other household names in South Africa who have liquidated or been battered in the past two years – reveals interesting similarities in seeking cause and effect of their respective fates. The reality is that businesses need to respond to exponential change while people only change logarithmically which leaves a glaring strategic gap. The Role Of Leadership In A Disruptive Environment The first port of call in seeking answers to this matter is leadership. Leadership sets the tone. However, in a disruptive environment, leaders are still too focused on taking charge of those in their care, rather than equally taking care of those in their charge. This view of Simon Sinek hits at the heart of the matter. Work and personal life have become intertwined and the emotional impact of change, disruption, and loss must be dealt with if employees are to perform. Heightened emotions are people issues and people issues can only be addressed through human connection. Sadly, many managers do not see it this way and adopt a ‘rank-and-yank’ attitude of fit in or else. In this way, entire businesses collapse over time as employees do not trust their managers. They withhold innovation and creativity as well as do just enough to get by. This is a recipe for disaster. On the contrary, leaders who connect with their employees, create a circle of trust, and can exercise EQ off the back of knowing who they are – and taking the time to get to know their colleagues – will not only enjoy more energy and innovation but also be more agile and resilient. Operational execution is the natural result of strong trust where people are valued, listened to, and engaged. Take a look at the workplace skills plans of 95% of businesses and it will be clear that managing with EQ is not a priority. The secret of an organisation’s future is hidden in the cumulative routines of its employees and leaders. It is this inability to empathise, and identify the needs of clients and employees (human-centricity) that is probably one of the most significant reasons for businesses being casualties rather than beneficiaries of change. If you’d like to get in touch, please don’t hesitate to contact me at john@globalbusiness.co.za.