QF CC CMS/CSS KPI review process......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF CC CMS/CSS KPI review process......
I'd be interested to hear of other's experiences and thoughts re this process.
Mine has been nothing short of de-humanizing.
I've found it to be "subjective" process based not on your operational ability or performance but rather something far more sinister.
It gives ones "manager" the ability to rank you based on what they think your level of engagement is with management.
They have in my instance measured my "engagement" based on my willingness to do unpaid work. Firing emails off to other departments [using my own computer I assume], following operational things that occur in my own time etc. and attending what we are told are voluntary workshops.
Bizarrely, a colleague of mine was even told by their manger [despite their faultless performance] that she/he thought, that they considered management to be some kind of enemy and was marked down because of this unsubstantiated opinion.
This "profiling" being the sort of thing one would expect of some kind of twisted "cult" or Eastern block totalitarian regime.
Perhaps Today Tonight or a Current Affair ought to do an expose???
My overriding concern is that at some stage CSM's and CSS's will be culled based on the results of this grossly flawed and entirely SUBJECTIVE management tool.
I've raised these issues with the Longhaul FAAA and quite frankly it doesn't seem that they share my concerns or those of my colleagues.
As an aside, it's interesting to note that I have had numerous converstaions with crew expressing concerns about the dreadful treatment dished out to Longhaul crew from their "masters".
Specifically concerns that at some point some "unbalanced" or "fragile" individual is going to be bullied, harassed, intimidated and dehumanized to the point where they just "snap".
With possibly tragic consequences that extend well beyond the individual concerned.........
Mine has been nothing short of de-humanizing.
I've found it to be "subjective" process based not on your operational ability or performance but rather something far more sinister.
It gives ones "manager" the ability to rank you based on what they think your level of engagement is with management.
They have in my instance measured my "engagement" based on my willingness to do unpaid work. Firing emails off to other departments [using my own computer I assume], following operational things that occur in my own time etc. and attending what we are told are voluntary workshops.
Bizarrely, a colleague of mine was even told by their manger [despite their faultless performance] that she/he thought, that they considered management to be some kind of enemy and was marked down because of this unsubstantiated opinion.
This "profiling" being the sort of thing one would expect of some kind of twisted "cult" or Eastern block totalitarian regime.
Perhaps Today Tonight or a Current Affair ought to do an expose???
My overriding concern is that at some stage CSM's and CSS's will be culled based on the results of this grossly flawed and entirely SUBJECTIVE management tool.
I've raised these issues with the Longhaul FAAA and quite frankly it doesn't seem that they share my concerns or those of my colleagues.
As an aside, it's interesting to note that I have had numerous converstaions with crew expressing concerns about the dreadful treatment dished out to Longhaul crew from their "masters".
Specifically concerns that at some point some "unbalanced" or "fragile" individual is going to be bullied, harassed, intimidated and dehumanized to the point where they just "snap".
With possibly tragic consequences that extend well beyond the individual concerned.........
Last edited by Left2assist; 8th Sep 2007 at 15:29.
Hmmm, Qantas is obviously in much more trouble than I thought.
I'm sorry to have to confess to having once had to participate in such a scheme from the other side of the table.
The general term for such schemes is "pseudo science" - dressing up entirely subjective evaluations and passing them off is objective.
There are usually half a dozen "dimensions" or "criteria" or "Key perfomance indicators" or sometimes even "Behaviours" for a manager to apply such as "Engagement", "Teamwork", "On time performance", "Helpfullness", "problem solving" and suchlike.
These are dressed up as quantative scores, usually be the manager being required to rank each dimension from One (Doesnt exhibit behaviour) to Five (Always exemplifies behaviour).
These are all written down on a nice expensively printed form, usually with space for comments and a summary.
The hapless victim is then "interviewed" by the manager, shown the form and asked what they are going to do in the next twelve months to remedy the "Gaps" (which invariably exist) in their performance.
These actions to remedy the "Performance Gaps" are then dutifully written next to the comments on each performance dimension and the resulting document is then signed by the manager and the victim.
And Voila! We have a performance assessment!
It has a nice little number (the sum of those one-to-five scores) with which to rank and grade the entire workforce. Bean counters love it because they can analyze the numbers to death.
It lists the weaknesses of each employee - to which the employee has just confessed, by agreeing what he (she) is going to do to remedy them (ie "improve) and signing the form.
The process is completely dehumanising and meaningless. I had one girl, a highly intelligent computer science graduate, in tears over her assessment which computed her to be merely an "average" performer - and that of course was for calculating bonuses.
Its meaningless because its entirely subjective, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid to Hay MSL or any of the other charletans who sell these schemes, and there are plenty of them.
The minor errors in them include the following. The one big error I'll explain last of all.
- central tendency - some managers are totally insensitive to anything, they grade nearly everyone as "average" (a three on the scale). If you were a cabin attendant who had delivered three babies and performed open heart surgery with a knife and fork one year, you might get a "four".
Conversely, even if you are known for shagging passengers in the toilets, your punishment during your annual review will only be to receive a "Two".
- Systematic bias - No body can ever be good enough to get more than "three", except the Manager of course, in his eyes he is always a "Five".
- Personal bias - he hates you. You get "Two" or "One" in every dimension.
In theory these errors can be compensated for by normalising the results statistically (for another few hundred thousand quid).
You can also dress up the process by having employees rank managers (hardly ever done), peer assessments (snitch on your fellow workers), self assessments (how could you improve your own performance? Come on, tell us your weaknesses) and suchlike.
Now for the one big error. this occurs at Board level. In their wisdom, these fatheads make the assumption that their entire workforce has to be representative of the general population as a whole - which neatly destroys the rationale for having an expensive recruitment and selection process - I mean aren't all pilots superior?
It therefore follows that the entire workforce must be fitted into a standard normal distribution.
It therefore follows that the rankings must be adjusted to fit a normal distribution
This translates into instructions to managers that only say 15% of their staff can be graded "exceptionally good", 60% must be graded "Average" and 15% must be graded below average performers
The uses management can then make of this data are rotten, and it gets worse with each annual review. It sounds like QF is simply doing its best to make all of you simply quit.
The process is often used to determine bonuses - a big reason for shoe horning the staff rankings into the bell curve. Staff will generally put up with this process if its for calculating bonuses.
Sometimes its used in making sacking decisions - which is interesting because I've never heard of this process stacking up in a court of law, but then if Australians are silly enough to vote Howard back in that won't matter.
Simplest and cheapest way of "reviewing" staff is to ask the immediate supervisor and no one else.
I'm sorry to have to confess to having once had to participate in such a scheme from the other side of the table.
The general term for such schemes is "pseudo science" - dressing up entirely subjective evaluations and passing them off is objective.
There are usually half a dozen "dimensions" or "criteria" or "Key perfomance indicators" or sometimes even "Behaviours" for a manager to apply such as "Engagement", "Teamwork", "On time performance", "Helpfullness", "problem solving" and suchlike.
These are dressed up as quantative scores, usually be the manager being required to rank each dimension from One (Doesnt exhibit behaviour) to Five (Always exemplifies behaviour).
These are all written down on a nice expensively printed form, usually with space for comments and a summary.
The hapless victim is then "interviewed" by the manager, shown the form and asked what they are going to do in the next twelve months to remedy the "Gaps" (which invariably exist) in their performance.
These actions to remedy the "Performance Gaps" are then dutifully written next to the comments on each performance dimension and the resulting document is then signed by the manager and the victim.
And Voila! We have a performance assessment!
It has a nice little number (the sum of those one-to-five scores) with which to rank and grade the entire workforce. Bean counters love it because they can analyze the numbers to death.
It lists the weaknesses of each employee - to which the employee has just confessed, by agreeing what he (she) is going to do to remedy them (ie "improve) and signing the form.
The process is completely dehumanising and meaningless. I had one girl, a highly intelligent computer science graduate, in tears over her assessment which computed her to be merely an "average" performer - and that of course was for calculating bonuses.
Its meaningless because its entirely subjective, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid to Hay MSL or any of the other charletans who sell these schemes, and there are plenty of them.
The minor errors in them include the following. The one big error I'll explain last of all.
- central tendency - some managers are totally insensitive to anything, they grade nearly everyone as "average" (a three on the scale). If you were a cabin attendant who had delivered three babies and performed open heart surgery with a knife and fork one year, you might get a "four".
Conversely, even if you are known for shagging passengers in the toilets, your punishment during your annual review will only be to receive a "Two".
- Systematic bias - No body can ever be good enough to get more than "three", except the Manager of course, in his eyes he is always a "Five".
- Personal bias - he hates you. You get "Two" or "One" in every dimension.
In theory these errors can be compensated for by normalising the results statistically (for another few hundred thousand quid).
You can also dress up the process by having employees rank managers (hardly ever done), peer assessments (snitch on your fellow workers), self assessments (how could you improve your own performance? Come on, tell us your weaknesses) and suchlike.
Now for the one big error. this occurs at Board level. In their wisdom, these fatheads make the assumption that their entire workforce has to be representative of the general population as a whole - which neatly destroys the rationale for having an expensive recruitment and selection process - I mean aren't all pilots superior?
It therefore follows that the entire workforce must be fitted into a standard normal distribution.
It therefore follows that the rankings must be adjusted to fit a normal distribution
This translates into instructions to managers that only say 15% of their staff can be graded "exceptionally good", 60% must be graded "Average" and 15% must be graded below average performers
The uses management can then make of this data are rotten, and it gets worse with each annual review. It sounds like QF is simply doing its best to make all of you simply quit.
The process is often used to determine bonuses - a big reason for shoe horning the staff rankings into the bell curve. Staff will generally put up with this process if its for calculating bonuses.
Sometimes its used in making sacking decisions - which is interesting because I've never heard of this process stacking up in a court of law, but then if Australians are silly enough to vote Howard back in that won't matter.
Simplest and cheapest way of "reviewing" staff is to ask the immediate supervisor and no one else.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: nIPPLES
Age: 93
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the troll manager who claused 11 someone for ICANing and highlighting a word in inverted commas and CAPITALS. He/she didnt like their tone, and thought they were shouting.
(I know caps on the net can be considered by some (ultra geeky sensitive types) as shouting btw)
(I know caps on the net can be considered by some (ultra geeky sensitive types) as shouting btw)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stand up to bullying
KPI's or as someone called it,"Keep People Inline", need to be much more agressively challenged. dont let those guys in the office bully you any longer. unfortunalty the faaa lh is not pro active at all on these matter. the upcoming meetings should give csm's/css's an opportunity to voice their anger at these humiliating meetings. i know that many collegues have contacted the faaa but they seem to not listen. take a leaf from the faaa domestic which is taking qf to court over the kpi's.apparently some csm did not meet his kpi they stood him down to "reflect on his position".
i would suggest to the resident faaa guys get a survey up on the faaa website for each Senior cabin crew manager/CCM/ CCTM and present the findings to "Il Duce".
FAAA do what you are supposed to do and represent your members
i would suggest to the resident faaa guys get a survey up on the faaa website for each Senior cabin crew manager/CCM/ CCTM and present the findings to "Il Duce".
FAAA do what you are supposed to do and represent your members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you so much for your post Sunfish.
I was hoping that you would be able to shed some light on what we are going through.
I'm sometimes criticized for reading too much into the actions and behaviours of our current crop of "managers" but I STILL can't for the life of me imagine that a group of people could be so blindingly stupid.
Their actions over the last few years have done NOTHING other than to disengage the few remaining crew [and other staff] for that matter, that are left.
Let me explain.
NO ONE is disengaged with the company that is Qantas. Our unique heritage and history is something that ALL operational staff feel be it Engineers, Cleaners, Pilots, Bus Drivers, Cabin Crew etc......
It's the faceless goons, masquerading as mangement and employed of late [to do God knows ******* what?] that staff have issues with and it is this corrosive relationship that is at the heart of what is wrong with our company.
The vast majority of them have no airline experience, operational knowledge and from what I have garnered don't give a toss either.
They seem solely preoccupied with the maintenance of their own KPI's which can ONLY be based around their ability to FURTHER disengage as it is all they have EVER done.
Operational staff WANT QF to succeed but they DONT want to be bullied, demeaned, harassed or dehumanised.
Stop the rot you morons and you might just see the kind of results achieved recently at Air New Zealand.
A company that can only be described as having management using worlds best practice.
Note the heading of the article.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out who it is directed towards.........
-----------------------------
Look-listen-learn
Geoffrey Thomas | August 17, 2007
THE New Zealand born-again award-winning airline is rewriting the airline staff management relations book with executives rolling up sleeves and working side by side with staff getting a dose of the "right stuff".
Every month, chief executive Rob Fyfe - and the rest of the airline's executives - don flight attendant uniforms and serve coffee or a fine New Zealand sauvignon blanc or might spend a day on the check-in counters or loading baggage.
And while they are doing that, they are reinforcing Charles Darwin's great quote that "it's not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent but the ones most responsive to change", for they are completely changing the way management deals with airline staff.
Air New Zealand has travelled an extraordinary journey since the bleak days of 2001 and it has all been built on interaction with staff, initially under former chief executive and current Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ralph Norris and now under Fyfe.
The result? Air NZ is now the most admired brand in New Zealand. According to recent survey by Britain-based TNS Global Research, the percentage of customers who would recommend the airline has grown from a paltry 44 per cent across the international network in 2004 to 90 per cent for the first time ever in November last year. "Our people are our brand" is the way Fyfe describes it. Every month or so, Fyfe hosts a staff barbecue for charity on the veranda outside the open-plan executive offices.
When Norris took the reins in early 2002, Air NZ had just written off $NZ1.45 billion - the largest write-off in New Zealand corporate history - after the collapse of its Ansett subsidiary.
A TRULY REMARKABLE STORY
I was hoping that you would be able to shed some light on what we are going through.
I'm sometimes criticized for reading too much into the actions and behaviours of our current crop of "managers" but I STILL can't for the life of me imagine that a group of people could be so blindingly stupid.
Their actions over the last few years have done NOTHING other than to disengage the few remaining crew [and other staff] for that matter, that are left.
Let me explain.
NO ONE is disengaged with the company that is Qantas. Our unique heritage and history is something that ALL operational staff feel be it Engineers, Cleaners, Pilots, Bus Drivers, Cabin Crew etc......
It's the faceless goons, masquerading as mangement and employed of late [to do God knows ******* what?] that staff have issues with and it is this corrosive relationship that is at the heart of what is wrong with our company.
The vast majority of them have no airline experience, operational knowledge and from what I have garnered don't give a toss either.
They seem solely preoccupied with the maintenance of their own KPI's which can ONLY be based around their ability to FURTHER disengage as it is all they have EVER done.
Operational staff WANT QF to succeed but they DONT want to be bullied, demeaned, harassed or dehumanised.
Stop the rot you morons and you might just see the kind of results achieved recently at Air New Zealand.
A company that can only be described as having management using worlds best practice.
Note the heading of the article.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out who it is directed towards.........
-----------------------------
Look-listen-learn
Geoffrey Thomas | August 17, 2007
THE New Zealand born-again award-winning airline is rewriting the airline staff management relations book with executives rolling up sleeves and working side by side with staff getting a dose of the "right stuff".
Every month, chief executive Rob Fyfe - and the rest of the airline's executives - don flight attendant uniforms and serve coffee or a fine New Zealand sauvignon blanc or might spend a day on the check-in counters or loading baggage.
And while they are doing that, they are reinforcing Charles Darwin's great quote that "it's not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent but the ones most responsive to change", for they are completely changing the way management deals with airline staff.
Air New Zealand has travelled an extraordinary journey since the bleak days of 2001 and it has all been built on interaction with staff, initially under former chief executive and current Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ralph Norris and now under Fyfe.
The result? Air NZ is now the most admired brand in New Zealand. According to recent survey by Britain-based TNS Global Research, the percentage of customers who would recommend the airline has grown from a paltry 44 per cent across the international network in 2004 to 90 per cent for the first time ever in November last year. "Our people are our brand" is the way Fyfe describes it. Every month or so, Fyfe hosts a staff barbecue for charity on the veranda outside the open-plan executive offices.
When Norris took the reins in early 2002, Air NZ had just written off $NZ1.45 billion - the largest write-off in New Zealand corporate history - after the collapse of its Ansett subsidiary.
A TRULY REMARKABLE STORY
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management Intent and Purpose
Management have deliberately employed dysfunctional individuals to be Team or CC Managers.
They have little intellect,no compassion and even less remorse.
Most posess little or no interpersonal skills.
The intention is to keep the workforce under pressure and off balance.
Some will fall victim to clause 11s while others will give up and leave.
In short the attrition rate will increase.
A healthy attrition rate in any business is around 10% p.a
Thats fine while ever there are people to replace those leaving.
We have pretty near full employment.
So QF is drawing off a very small base as evidenced by some of the individuals employed recently.Under normal circumstances these people wouldnt even get a look in.
The growing number of airlines in Australia means there is now competition for suitable(unsuitable?) applicants.
Eventually some one will realise that this is having a negative impact on service levels.
Service levels are declining but its the Crews fault.
The fact the wrong people are being employed and that their training is inadequate escapes those above.
What we have here is a recipe for failure.All the experienced people leave and you are left with those who are not bonded to the business,are poorly trained and are not really suitable for the position.
A brilliant plan for being the worlds pre eminent airline.
But hey...the attrition rate is up.
Genius....pure Genius.
Someone is receiving an incentive bonus for this grand plan.
All onboard managers should elect to downgrade at the same time.
Chaos can be so entertaining.
They have little intellect,no compassion and even less remorse.
Most posess little or no interpersonal skills.
The intention is to keep the workforce under pressure and off balance.
Some will fall victim to clause 11s while others will give up and leave.
In short the attrition rate will increase.
A healthy attrition rate in any business is around 10% p.a
Thats fine while ever there are people to replace those leaving.
We have pretty near full employment.
So QF is drawing off a very small base as evidenced by some of the individuals employed recently.Under normal circumstances these people wouldnt even get a look in.
The growing number of airlines in Australia means there is now competition for suitable(unsuitable?) applicants.
Eventually some one will realise that this is having a negative impact on service levels.
Service levels are declining but its the Crews fault.
The fact the wrong people are being employed and that their training is inadequate escapes those above.
What we have here is a recipe for failure.All the experienced people leave and you are left with those who are not bonded to the business,are poorly trained and are not really suitable for the position.
A brilliant plan for being the worlds pre eminent airline.
But hey...the attrition rate is up.
Genius....pure Genius.
Someone is receiving an incentive bonus for this grand plan.
All onboard managers should elect to downgrade at the same time.
Chaos can be so entertaining.
Last edited by DEFCON4; 9th Sep 2007 at 01:19.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every month, chief executive Rob Fyfe - and the rest of the airline's executives - don flight attendant uniforms and serve coffee or a fine New Zealand sauvignon blanc or might spend a day on the check-in counters or loading baggage.
Cabin Crew management would not even consider that let alone the CEO.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fear as a Perception
While fear can be an intention it is also a perception.
My manager intends to instill fear.
I perceive my manager as mildly entertaining and not vey bright.
Try as my manager might I will not be intimidated.
Getting a two or a three is irrelevant.
Provide better resources and performance will improve.
I will not be held accountable for someone elses failures.
My manager intends to instill fear.
I perceive my manager as mildly entertaining and not vey bright.
Try as my manager might I will not be intimidated.
Getting a two or a three is irrelevant.
Provide better resources and performance will improve.
I will not be held accountable for someone elses failures.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: REAL WORLD
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
excellent response
S6, but those clowns need to be put in line. and as an individual you cant do much about it, but thats what we pay union fees for. i would sugeest to the resident union guys respective members dont want to see excuses they want to see something done about it. i just sat in on a conversation in lax and the csm's/css's there were prety much on the same page. they want the union to take action.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dununda
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pointless
These people have a very small impact on my life.To change their approach requires effort .I am not prepared to expend any of my time or energy in an attempt to change their behaviour.
The change needs to come from the Black Widow or the bottle blond Fat Controller.
Go to the organ grinder not the organ grinder's monkeys if its change you require.
They have a brief:
1.Reduce costs.
2.Change the culture
3.Improve service levels
4.Increase attrition rates.
5.Elevate discipline through fear and intimidation
You will note that there is nothing about motivation or engagement.
Its taken Air NZ years to get over the Black Widow legacy.
Grant is like a Starbuck Espresso...lots of froth but very little substance.
Dont expect any innovation from her.
She is clueless
The Chief Executive Orifice leaves in 18 months.A lot of the monkeys will go with him.
We should all concentrate on the upcoming EBA rather than these haemorrhoids.
The change needs to come from the Black Widow or the bottle blond Fat Controller.
Go to the organ grinder not the organ grinder's monkeys if its change you require.
They have a brief:
1.Reduce costs.
2.Change the culture
3.Improve service levels
4.Increase attrition rates.
5.Elevate discipline through fear and intimidation
You will note that there is nothing about motivation or engagement.
Its taken Air NZ years to get over the Black Widow legacy.
Grant is like a Starbuck Espresso...lots of froth but very little substance.
Dont expect any innovation from her.
She is clueless
The Chief Executive Orifice leaves in 18 months.A lot of the monkeys will go with him.
We should all concentrate on the upcoming EBA rather than these haemorrhoids.
Last edited by surfside6; 9th Sep 2007 at 07:21.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't help yourself, can you prune? Have to bring up the Howard catchcry every time something happens to displease some people. What on earth has he got to do with the subject of this thread.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Industrial Environment
Under JWH corporations are able to treat their employees like units of work not human beings.
JWH creates the environment for these swine to subject theire employees to fear and intimidation.
This is exactly what this thread is all about.
If this little fascist gets re elected he will claim it as a mandate to increase exponentially the punitive Work Choices Legislation.
These intimidatory meetings masquerading as armchair chats will become inquisitorial.
JWH creates the environment for these swine to subject theire employees to fear and intimidation.
This is exactly what this thread is all about.
If this little fascist gets re elected he will claim it as a mandate to increase exponentially the punitive Work Choices Legislation.
These intimidatory meetings masquerading as armchair chats will become inquisitorial.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired Reverend
It is noted that you are no longer part of the workforce.
You are not subjected to this nonsense.
Ask some of your still employed former colleagues how they are fairing.
Hopefully with a change of government employees will be treated more fairly by employers like QF
You are not subjected to this nonsense.
Ask some of your still employed former colleagues how they are fairing.
Hopefully with a change of government employees will be treated more fairly by employers like QF
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but don't forget the increased intimidation will maintain sufficient attrition to ensure that the highly paid continue to leave. They will be substituted by AWA's and those of lesser rumeration.
Of course this assumes a coalition victory. The "conservatives" must go. If they do not, watch them continue to throw good money after bad at J*. If they can get it to critical mass with sufficient crew, they will take us all on at the expiration of our next EBA.
If it fails and ASIC grows some balls we may see the repugnant behaviour of "management" taken before the regulator. It is around that time frame the Dixon legacy will be lanced from Qantas, with hopefully enough of the thugs departing with him, be they cabin services, engineering or flight operations.
Of course this assumes a coalition victory. The "conservatives" must go. If they do not, watch them continue to throw good money after bad at J*. If they can get it to critical mass with sufficient crew, they will take us all on at the expiration of our next EBA.
If it fails and ASIC grows some balls we may see the repugnant behaviour of "management" taken before the regulator. It is around that time frame the Dixon legacy will be lanced from Qantas, with hopefully enough of the thugs departing with him, be they cabin services, engineering or flight operations.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Heaven
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information Gathering
QF now has a dossier on all its employees.
Management knows who performs and who doesnt.
Those that perform well should be further encouraged.
Those that dont perform should be assisted with further training and the reason for their poor performance identified and corrected.
This just does not happen.
Performance levels particularly in Y/C are dropping.
No one knows why?
So the crew are blamed...thats the easy way out.
Put the fear of God into the on board managers and it will filter through.
A great theory if you are dealing with small children.
There is a failure amongst CC management to accept that they have cut too far into the service bone.
There are not enough well resourced motivated crew to produce outstanding service.
Management receive incentive bonuses to excel.
Employees receive a kick in the rear.
Its not working folks...take a leaf out of the Air NZ book you might be amazed at the results.
While QF is Animal Farm service levels will continue to decline.
KPIs as they are set now are unobtainable.
All the threats in the world will fail to produce the desired results.
Unfortunately nobody is listening.
Management knows who performs and who doesnt.
Those that perform well should be further encouraged.
Those that dont perform should be assisted with further training and the reason for their poor performance identified and corrected.
This just does not happen.
Performance levels particularly in Y/C are dropping.
No one knows why?
So the crew are blamed...thats the easy way out.
Put the fear of God into the on board managers and it will filter through.
A great theory if you are dealing with small children.
There is a failure amongst CC management to accept that they have cut too far into the service bone.
There are not enough well resourced motivated crew to produce outstanding service.
Management receive incentive bonuses to excel.
Employees receive a kick in the rear.
Its not working folks...take a leaf out of the Air NZ book you might be amazed at the results.
While QF is Animal Farm service levels will continue to decline.
KPIs as they are set now are unobtainable.
All the threats in the world will fail to produce the desired results.
Unfortunately nobody is listening.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bundeena(AUSTRALIA)
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ad Nauseum Discussion
These topics are discussed ad nauseam going around and around.
There will only ever be one conclusion.
Poor man management ,lack of motivational protocols and the continued ignoring of poor morale.
It aint rocket science...or is it?
There will only ever be one conclusion.
Poor man management ,lack of motivational protocols and the continued ignoring of poor morale.
It aint rocket science...or is it?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, poor management has been discussed.........
however this particular process has not and for those of us that have had to endure it, communicating our experiences is I'm sure, more than a little cathartic.
Sunfish described it perfectly.
A DEHUMANIZING and SUBJECTIVE process dressed up as some sort of " "pseudo science".
The long and short of it is it's BULLS#IT and we all know it.
The effect of it has been in typical QF fashion just another "cluster f#ck".
More crew [MANAGERS, YOU CRETINS !!!!] offside with increased levels of disengagement from the one group QF can I'll afford to lose given their efforts and performance drive the customer's experience.
Reports suggest that sick leave amongst CSM's and CSS's has skyrocketed since the last round of KPI interviews..................
What these clueless individuals don't seem to just "get" is that they are not dealing with an I'll educated, easily intimidated workforce especially when it comes to their on board managers.
There are numerous reports of CSM's being marked down as not having met their KPI's as they have had ONE negative upward feedback survey from a cabin crew member.
Protestations that the individual had to be "performance managed" over an issue and used the "upward feedback" tool to get even, are ignored.
Easy fix, idiots .
We no longer performance manage
Sunfish described it perfectly.
A DEHUMANIZING and SUBJECTIVE process dressed up as some sort of " "pseudo science".
The long and short of it is it's BULLS#IT and we all know it.
The effect of it has been in typical QF fashion just another "cluster f#ck".
More crew [MANAGERS, YOU CRETINS !!!!] offside with increased levels of disengagement from the one group QF can I'll afford to lose given their efforts and performance drive the customer's experience.
Reports suggest that sick leave amongst CSM's and CSS's has skyrocketed since the last round of KPI interviews..................
What these clueless individuals don't seem to just "get" is that they are not dealing with an I'll educated, easily intimidated workforce especially when it comes to their on board managers.
There are numerous reports of CSM's being marked down as not having met their KPI's as they have had ONE negative upward feedback survey from a cabin crew member.
Protestations that the individual had to be "performance managed" over an issue and used the "upward feedback" tool to get even, are ignored.
Easy fix, idiots
.We no longer performance manage
Last edited by speedbirdhouse; 9th Sep 2007 at 11:38.