HR as an Industry
My experience at both the International Labour Organisation and also the European Union is that HR is struggling to be seen as anything other than a service to the mainstream economy. It is not seen as an Industry in it's own right capable of structuring a Social Partnership between Business (those who own the HR consultancies and companies) and Labour (the HR Practitioners themselves). The problem is therefore that HR does not have a true SIC Code identity and is not capable of earning the same benefits as other Industries including DTI supply-side benefits to grow ones company and improve Industry practices. In-fact very little industry-based and best-practice research exists for HR as an Industry as opposed to a practice.
The Services SETA IS responsible for HR as an Industry but struggles to identify any Employer Association grouping or any meaningful independant collective voice for practitioners. Hence we end-up dealing with representatives who evidence almost no collective mandate and are really independant practitioners.
We need to do something about this problem, particularly in the light of the new HR Council which soon will be up-and-running. Surely as HR Practitioners you do not want the traditional representatives sitting on that Council and not properly representing your interests as they have done with so much aplomb in the past? Surely you want HR to be seen as a vibrant and dynamic Industry with a self-concept and identity capable of being a shining light rather than a wilting flower?
The Services SETA has a Chamber Board, a Social Partnership with place for both an Employer Collective and a dynamic Employee Collective to engage, make decisions and access funding for Industry-building initiatives. We are however an authority catering to the needs of 37 different Industries. We cannot micro-manage each of these Industries for anything other than Skills Development initiatives. We need your help.
The Services SETA IS responsible for HR as an Industry but struggles to identify any Employer Association grouping or any meaningful independant collective voice for practitioners. Hence we end-up dealing with representatives who evidence almost no collective mandate and are really independant practitioners.
We need to do something about this problem, particularly in the light of the new HR Council which soon will be up-and-running. Surely as HR Practitioners you do not want the traditional representatives sitting on that Council and not properly representing your interests as they have done with so much aplomb in the past? Surely you want HR to be seen as a vibrant and dynamic Industry with a self-concept and identity capable of being a shining light rather than a wilting flower?
The Services SETA has a Chamber Board, a Social Partnership with place for both an Employer Collective and a dynamic Employee Collective to engage, make decisions and access funding for Industry-building initiatives. We are however an authority catering to the needs of 37 different Industries. We cannot micro-manage each of these Industries for anything other than Skills Development initiatives. We need your help.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by sylvia hammond on -
Hi Ivan,
Thank for this excellent post - your distinction between HR as an industry and HR as a practice is very useful.
I have always supported the professionalisation of HR practitioners via the SABPP and am disappointed that this has not been more successful. I suggest that we should look at the concept of development of the HR industry in tandem with the professionalisation of the broad field of HR. I have made an attempt to list the various areas I believe fall under HR and within this list all of the categories are provided not only by employees but also external providers - the industry you speak of.
My definition of HR includes:
HR executives including the strategic roles; generalists at management level; specialists at all levels in: transformation and diversity management, IR & ER and labour law and conflict resolution practitioners, HRD training and development including ETDP practitioners, material developers, facilitators, assessors and assessment and design practitioners, moderators, verifiers and the administrative SDFs, payroll and benefits administrators, remuneration specialists, administrators of personnel records, OD and organisational design with job analysis, design and evaluation, recruitment & onboarding specialists, coaches and mentors, and there's a good case to include Occupational Health and Safety practitioners, and EAP and providers of other employee services.
Within this definition the majority of employees I believe are mainstream HR practitioners at all levels employed by the State, and large multi-national and national corporate employers. (With a smaller number of more junior practioners employed by medium to small businesses.) These employees do make use of the "industry practitioners.
Therefore, to develop an industry concept, would require this broad range of practitioners and service providers to band together and recognise each other as fellow providers within an industry. What's in it for us? The chance to access financial support from DTI and the Services Seta.
Many of these sub-sectors I list already do have associations, such as payroll, SDFs, private training service providers, labour law and IR practitioners, IPM . The question is should there be an Indaba of the associations to identify a common industry interest of these independent service providers - as compared to employees in these fields?
-
Permalink Reply by Ivor Blumenthal on -
Hi Sylvia, unfortunately I have never believed the SABPP has the capacity to understand Industry issues. It represents at-best the practitioners. Taking an "Industry View" requires a Social Partnership which is what SETA's are all about as is NEDLAC. I personally invited the SABPP to participate at Chamber Board level some nine years ago and pursued the issue with them for years until they decided to pursue the issue of becomming an ETQA and drop the Industry issues completely.
What we need is to have an Employer Organisation formed for HR Company owners. That is where the SSETA can help in-terms of the facilitation thereof. Once that is done the engagement cycle begins and in the SSETA that is pretty simple in-terms of our mandate as the issue of engagement becomes that of skilling. Withion our Business Chamber, under Peta Broomberg HR features prominently but quite frankly with the obfuscation of some parties her efforts are regularly countered and therefore her objectives frustrated.
sylvia hammond said:Hi Ivan,
Thank for this excellent post - your distinction between HR as an industry and HR as a practice is very useful.
I have always supported the professionalisation of HR practitioners via the SABPP and am disappointed that this has not been more successful. I suggest that we should look at the concept of development of the HR industry in tandem with the professionalisation of the broad field of HR. I have made an attempt to list the various areas I believe fall under HR and within this list all of the categories are provided not only by employees but also external providers - the industry you speak of.
My definition of HR includes:
HR executives including the strategic roles; generalists at management level; specialists at all levels in: transformation and diversity management, IR & ER and labour law and conflict resolution practitioners, HRD training and development including ETDP practitioners, material developers, facilitators, assessors and assessment and design practitioners, moderators, verifiers and the administrative SDFs, payroll and benefits administrators, remuneration specialists, administrators of personnel records, OD and organisational design with job analysis, design and evaluation, recruitment & onboarding specialists, coaches and mentors, and there's a good case to include Occupational Health and Safety practitioners, and EAP and providers of other employee services.
Within this definition the majority of employees I believe are mainstream HR practitioners at all levels employed by the State, and large multi-national and national corporate employers. (With a smaller number of more junior practioners employed by medium to small businesses.) These employees do make use of the "industry practitioners.
Therefore, to develop an industry concept, would require this broad range of practitioners and service providers to band together and recognise each other as fellow providers within an industry. What's in it for us? The chance to access financial support from DTI and the Services Seta.
Many of these sub-sectors I list already do have associations, such as payroll, SDFs, private training service providers, labour law and IR practitioners, IPM . The question is should there be an Indaba of the associations to identify a common industry interest of these independent service providers - as compared to employees in these fields?
-
Permalink Reply by sylvia hammond on
-
Hi Ivor,
I would be very interested in pursuing the idea of an HR Employer Organisation as I can see a number of advantages and benefits - maybe we can discuss further next week?
Ivor Blumenthal said:Hi Sylvia, unfortunately I have never believed the SABPP has the capacity to understand Industry issues. It represents at-best the practitioners. Taking an "Industry View" requires a Social Partnership which is what SETA's are all about as is NEDLAC. I personally invited the SABPP to participate at Chamber Board level some nine years ago and pursued the issue with them for years until they decided to pursue the issue of becomming an ETQA and drop the Industry issues completely.
What we need is to have an Employer Organisation formed for HR Company owners. That is where the SSETA can help in-terms of the facilitation thereof. Once that is done the engagement cycle begins and in the SSETA that is pretty simple in-terms of our mandate as the issue of engagement becomes that of skilling. Withion our Business Chamber, under Peta Broomberg HR features prominently but quite frankly with the obfuscation of some parties her efforts are regularly countered and therefore her objectives frustrated.
sylvia hammond said:Hi Ivan,
Thank for this excellent post - your distinction between HR as an industry and HR as a practice is very useful.
I have always supported the professionalisation of HR practitioners via the SABPP and am disappointed that this has not been more successful. I suggest that we should look at the concept of development of the HR industry in tandem with the professionalisation of the broad field of HR. I have made an attempt to list the various areas I believe fall under HR and within this list all of the categories are provided not only by employees but also external providers - the industry you speak of.
My definition of HR includes:
HR executives including the strategic roles; generalists at management level; specialists at all levels in: transformation and diversity management, IR & ER and labour law and conflict resolution practitioners, HRD training and development including ETDP practitioners, material developers, facilitators, assessors and assessment and design practitioners, moderators, verifiers and the administrative SDFs, payroll and benefits administrators, remuneration specialists, administrators of personnel records, OD and organisational design with job analysis, design and evaluation, recruitment & onboarding specialists, coaches and mentors, and there's a good case to include Occupational Health and Safety practitioners, and EAP and providers of other employee services.
Within this definition the majority of employees I believe are mainstream HR practitioners at all levels employed by the State, and large multi-national and national corporate employers. (With a smaller number of more junior practioners employed by medium to small businesses.) These employees do make use of the "industry practitioners.
Therefore, to develop an industry concept, would require this broad range of practitioners and service providers to band together and recognise each other as fellow providers within an industry. What's in it for us? The chance to access financial support from DTI and the Services Seta.
Many of these sub-sectors I list already do have associations, such as payroll, SDFs, private training service providers, labour law and IR practitioners, IPM . The question is should there be an Indaba of the associations to identify a common industry interest of these independent service providers - as compared to employees in these fields?
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob Selematsela on -
Thank you Ivan for this most crucial topic of the day.I have also done HR management and upon reaching the working environment i realised that in some companies,the HR Practitioners are basically and sadly not afforded an opportunity to exercise their own discretion especially when it comes to recruitment.
They are simply told who to hire and who not to.This is really sad because at the end of the day i see those poor practitioners leaving the proffession and pursue other spheres of proffessions.I certainly agree that all HR practitioners should organise themselves and work with their own formulated policies and principles and be also regulated and thus providing them with extensive support throughout their careers.
-
Permalink Reply by Neeran Ramjuthan on -
Hi All,
I have been recently introduced to this site and have for the past few weeks following some of the discussions on this site and not really made any contribution to date. However, after reading the posts on this topic in particular I cannot resist but put my thought on the topic into words. Human Resources the world over and more specifically in South Africa doesn’t get the strategic priority that it deserves, and in my opinion there are several reasons for this. However one the reasons I believe we are not given the necessary respect as practitioners and strategic priority as a discipline is as a result of our very own doing, in that as practitioner we have a legacy of been reactive and offering a post box function. Given that backdrop, unless we ourselves stand up and take a stance by engaging in strategic conversation with business we would never move forward or prove our worth. Hence for HR practitioners the shift is in the ability for HR practitioners to start thinking strategically and seeing the bigger picture. HR people, even those who are very well trained do not necessarily have these skills. I believe that this maybe the opportunity for the training of HR people, or maybe there needs to be a re-look at the curriculum at university / technickon level in terms of what constitutes the proper course for HR modules. Alternatively, in their monitoring roles other bodies such as SABPP and IPM can include a skills monitoring mechanism of practitioners, for new graduates through proper course development and for current practitioners through CPD. Not sure if what I write makes sense but am willing to avail myself for any further discussions or research into the topic.
sylvia hammond said:Hi Ivor,
I would be very interested in pursuing the idea of an HR Employer Organisation as I can see a number of advantages and benefits - maybe we can discuss further next week?
Ivor Blumenthal said:Hi Sylvia, unfortunately I have never believed the SABPP has the capacity to understand Industry issues. It represents at-best the practitioners. Taking an "Industry View" requires a Social Partnership which is what SETA's are all about as is NEDLAC. I personally invited the SABPP to participate at Chamber Board level some nine years ago and pursued the issue with them for years until they decided to pursue the issue of becomming an ETQA and drop the Industry issues completely.
What we need is to have an Employer Organisation formed for HR Company owners. That is where the SSETA can help in-terms of the facilitation thereof. Once that is done the engagement cycle begins and in the SSETA that is pretty simple in-terms of our mandate as the issue of engagement becomes that of skilling. Withion our Business Chamber, under Peta Broomberg HR features prominently but quite frankly with the obfuscation of some parties her efforts are regularly countered and therefore her objectives frustrated.
sylvia hammond said:Hi Ivan,
Thank for this excellent post - your distinction between HR as an industry and HR as a practice is very useful.
I have always supported the professionalisation of HR practitioners via the SABPP and am disappointed that this has not been more successful. I suggest that we should look at the concept of development of the HR industry in tandem with the professionalisation of the broad field of HR. I have made an attempt to list the various areas I believe fall under HR and within this list all of the categories are provided not only by employees but also external providers - the industry you speak of.
My definition of HR includes:
HR executives including the strategic roles; generalists at management level; specialists at all levels in: transformation and diversity management, IR & ER and labour law and conflict resolution practitioners, HRD training and development including ETDP practitioners, material developers, facilitators, assessors and assessment and design practitioners, moderators, verifiers and the administrative SDFs, payroll and benefits administrators, remuneration specialists, administrators of personnel records, OD and organisational design with job analysis, design and evaluation, recruitment & onboarding specialists, coaches and mentors, and there's a good case to include Occupational Health and Safety practitioners, and EAP and providers of other employee services.
Within this definition the majority of employees I believe are mainstream HR practitioners at all levels employed by the State, and large multi-national and national corporate employers. (With a smaller number of more junior practioners employed by medium to small businesses.) These employees do make use of the "industry practitioners.
Therefore, to develop an industry concept, would require this broad range of practitioners and service providers to band together and recognise each other as fellow providers within an industry. What's in it for us? The chance to access financial support from DTI and the Services Seta.
Many of these sub-sectors I list already do have associations, such as payroll, SDFs, private training service providers, labour law and IR practitioners, IPM . The question is should there be an Indaba of the associations to identify a common industry interest of these independent service providers - as compared to employees in these fields?
-
Permalink Reply by Peter van der Schyff on -
Should one not invite the SABPP to respond to this thread? I suggest any members who also belong to the SABPP urge them to respond on this site and participate in what I believe to be a very important debate.
I find it quite disturbing to see the shift in the public perception of a profession that I used to be very proud to be associated with. How true is the perception that the main corporate function of HR has shifted from sourcing, developing and motivating people towards better productivity and quality of life to advising management on how to get rid of people without falling foul of labour legislation.
A true professionalisation of the HR function may go a long way to rectifying this perception. And remember: perception is the reality to the perceiver, whether we like it or not.
-
Permalink Reply by Peta Jacqueline Horn on -
Hi, I am currently an elected member on Board at SABPP and also probably the "baby" amongst the board members in terms of experience etc.
I am have read with great interest, Ivor's, Sylvia's and Peter's comments and the others too.
I am equally disturbed by the perceptions of HR. In my dealings with corporates and training in HR, and my association with Dave Ulrich, and others, it's becoming more and more evident that there is a dire need for HR practitioners to become business partners. This requires a HUGE paradigm shift, beginning with how HR is trained and educated, right up to it's implementation. A move away from viewing HR as a functional role, to the business partnering concept.
Ivor I for one both as a training provider with Services SETA and a Board Member at SABPP agree, that the SABPP needs to bring in the business focus. I am trying currently to register our HR Business Partnering course as a CPD program for HR practitioners. I along with Sylvia would love to pursue the HR Employer Organisation concept and am willing to lend my time and expertise wherever it is needed.
Peter as far as the shift in perception is concerned, I agree with you but would like to add that the way in which HR is trained needs to be changed. Business I feel also needs to view HR in terms of a strategic partnership with management. It's a perception I also feel that is created by the practitioners themselves and they need to get to grips with business strategy and business processes, balance sheets etc and be seen to work with business and against business in terms of implementing compliance and legislative processes which is costly and often frustrating for operations and production.
...just my 2 cents worth
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm A Birkin on
-
A difficult problem !
The EU is without doubt the least homogenous economic “block” having a wide range of country-development levels. Obviously taken as a whole, the level of HR could well be seen to be underdeveloped, yet many top EU companies have a very well developed HR function. A similar situation applies in the U.S and in SE Asia where the top companies have got it right but the average across all companies leaves much room for improvement.
The reason why some companies have developed their HR function fully is due to two main reasons.
They are focused on global best practices and understand the bottom line and competitive values of implementing best practices or, they are forced to use best global practices because achieving a competitive edge leaves them no choice but to do so (Toyota versus General Motors).
I do not know of ANY instances where HR has been developed through the good offices of any representative group. As an obvious example, Japan developed their HR practices in a calculated move to change the pre-war work ethics of employees. Had they not done so, they could not have become the worlds second largest economy with less than half the population of the US (the worlds largest economy).
Here we have many more problems in the way.
We have very few sectors that operate in a competitive environment, so the push to change does not exist. Similarly we do not have many companies that scan the world for global best practices and seek to emulate them. Equally retarding is our incredible burden of ‘regulaises’ that are stifling for a developing economy.
We see this in the priority given in every situations vacant advertisement for a top HR person to be fully familiar with all relevant regulations. That which should be the MAJOR role of the HR department is never mentioned (Sorry Sylvia, but it is not mentioned in your list either). (The strongest HR Industry is the recruitment sector-they will continue to do whatever their clients tell them to do).
It seems to me to be very wishful thinking to assume that any additional HR body is likely to change this situation. We are stuck firmly in a time-lock of our own making. Even the (unelected) communists in government are keeping quiet about China’s fast rate of growth and job creation that was due to three major factors, no labour laws. people placed in charge of growth areas were fired if they failed to achieve seven percent annual growth for two consecutive years, and no political dogma was allowed in the economic arena.
If the ANC had been able to produce a half-decent growth plan that was spearheaded by competition then we could perhaps have seen a change, but few companies are going to change unless they have to, despite the considerable bottom-line advantages in doing so !
I agree that the HR Council, (that will no doubt be ANC-ed), is likely to have anything other than a reinforcing effect upon our Rip-van-Winkle snooze in our comfortable time-lock. Increasing the already over-full alphabet soup by adding another acronym or two is not going to change anything. Only a very powerful competitive rocket placed where it hurts most is likely to make any difference
Sincerely
Malcolm Birkin
-
Permalink Reply by Hannes Piek on
-
Hi Ivan
Not suprising that HR is in tiff. HR practitioners think and reason operationally - i.e. payroll, IR, policies, recruitment as a function not a practice, etc. They therefore allow themselves, by not functioning on an integrative and strategic level, to be sidelined.
That SABPP should be considered as a partner may be so, but my humble opinion is that they may also be suffering the same malaise.
That practicing companies need to take a stance is so - from an I/O Psychology perspective many of this fraternity are HR Managers, but, due to their prefered level of functioning they allow themselves to be relegated to being mere Personnel Managers, or super Psychometrists at best.
Maybe the root cause for the failure of HR needs to be sought elsewhere and adressed.
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm A Birkin on
-
Hi
Whilst I have no doubts that only competition will solve this problem, there is route to possibly raising the interest of companies wanting to become more profitable. Would Mr Bulmenthal be interested in getting a group of 20 CEO's together, and I will give a presentation on the topic of TWENTY FIVE WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE BY MODERNISING YOUR HR DEPARTMENT.
Malcolm Birkin
-
Permalink Reply by Peta Jacqueline Horn on
-
I would like to share with all HR Practitioners the following article written by Jerry Molefe (Jerry Molefe is the HR Executive at Werksmans Attorneys, a registered Chartered HR Practitioner with the SABPP and also a Board member of the IPM. He may be contacted at jmolefe@werksmans.com):
THE INTITUTIONS THAT SERVE THE PEOPLE
In his recent visit to Africa, the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama stated that "history is on the side of these brave Africans and not with those who use coups or change constitutions to stay in power. Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions. You have the power to hold your leaders accountable and to build institutions that serve the people."
I find the above statement very fascinating and ironically very relevant in all areas of governance, (and literally) including the people management institutions.
South Africa has some of the most powerful and strong leaders of people who have proven to be very successful and competes favourably well, if not better than, the best in the global economy. We have very strong individual men and women who are HR Directors and Executives of our blue-chip organisations and other public sector organisations. We need these individuals to share their best practices and to transfer their knowledge and skills through formalised mentorship programmes and strong networks in order to advance human resources even further within our borders and internationally. This can only be done through 'strong institutions'.
Institutions find it better to mobilize than individuals. Most of the professional institutions such as the medical, engineering and legal professions are regulated in South Africa. This makes it easier for these professional bodies to set, monitor and advance their professional standards and to address issues of national importance in one voice. There are other institutions that are self-regulated but very effective such as the Black Management Forum that currently Chairs the Employment Equity Commission.
The current challenges in the global economy includes talent management, managing demographics, improving leadership development, transforming HR into a strategic partner, work-life balance and critical skills shortages, broad based black economic empowerment, labour strikes and the increasing social unrests within and around our communities in South Africa. This would suggest that there is a crucial and urgent need for people leaders and HR in particular to be more organized and institutionalised than ever before.
The People Management Institutions
The Institute of People Management (IPM) and the South African Board for People Practices (SABPP) are the two main bodies that serve the interest of HR professionals and people leaders in South Africa. These two institutions have different roles to play however, they complement each other in the field and space of people management and practices.
There are different models of People Management Institutions in other parts of the world. Most countries would have only one body that is responsible for professional and related matters such as; professional registration, HR competencies and standards, professional code of conduct, research initiatives, advisory role to the government as well as thought leadership.
South Africa therefore has a unique model that must be explained and understood by all stakeholders who are involved with people management and leadership.
The history and role of the IPM
The Institute of People Management is a non-profit organisation that was founded more than 60 years ago with the aim of providing appropriate, relevant knowledge and information on effective leadership and people management to human resource professionals and management in general.
The IPM is a member organisation that dedicates its efforts to providing knowledge and tools for strategic people development and leadership, which contribute to growth, profitability and sustainability of businesses. IPM believes that its effectiveness can and should be measured by relevance, accessibility, and quality of service provided to its members. The mission of the IPM is to be the professional association trusted and valued by HR practitioners in reaching the above objectives.
The flagship and pride of the IPM is the annual convention which will be hosting it's 53rd annual convention at Sun City in November 2009. This prestigious event of the IPM brings together world class leaders and exhibitors to share their knowledge and showcase their services and products to individuals who are involved in people management and practices
The history and role of the South African Board for People Practices (SABPP)
The SABPP on the other hand was established in 1982 by the Institute for Personnel Management (IPM) and has fulfilled the function of being the standards and professional registration body for HR. Some of the Board’s outputs include a Board Paper on HR competencies and HR Profiles, creating a career path for HR by aligning registration levels to the NQF, a workable RPL system for professional registration, an electronic continued professional development programme, published research and an HR dictionary.
In 1989 a Board examination was introduced to allow talented people without the necessary qualifications a route to professional registration. This examination was terminated when the Board applied for ETQA status with SAQA, as it was indicated that such an activity would jeopardize the granting of the quality assurance function. The overseeing of proper recognition of prior learning practices by providers in the HR field would, however, become an ETQA function.
The SABPP also offers mentor programs however, the mentorship programs of the SABPP are different in that they are aimed at ensuring that Mentors function as a sounding board for strategic decisions made by the Board of the SABPP. They also Mentor HR Candidates registered with the Board. Mentors are invited to participate in institutional audits and Board committees are often chaired by Mentors of the Board.
The future
The current board of the IPM has resolved to increase member participation in the activities of the institution by giving power to the members through branch activities. There is a concerted effort to encourage branch participation and to establish and reestablish IPM branches throughout the country.
Research has indicated that maximum benefit for membership of professional and other institutions is derived trough contributing, networking and any other form of active participation in the activities of those organizations. The IPM provides a variety of networking opportunities through its Branch networks and community of practice forums, such as “Knowledge Exchange Groups”. In addition IPM has recently established a forum for mentors, the objective of which is to equip mentors with the skills to fulfill this role satisfactorily.
This is a call for all HR and other business and people leaders who are not members of the IPM and the SABPP to seriously consider taking up the membership of these organisations. If we as HR and people leaders are serious about people, we need to indicate that by having 'one voice' and proving that we understand that 'the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts'.
The IPM has a greater role in addressing national issues such as influencing cultural changes in the workplace and in our communities and in influencing the speed of transformation and change as well as other workplace challenges.
While there are discussions and processes underway to debate the regulation of the HR profession in South Africa, it is very critical that the HR body continues with self-regulation and becomes relevant and effective in dealing with local and global economic and social issues. We can achieve this by becoming an institution through membership of the IPM or the SABPP. If fact, anyone who is passionate about any profession will advance that particular profession through active participation and membership of that profession.
Lets us all come together and build strong Institutions !!!
For more information on the two institutions visit www.ipm.co.za and www.sabpp.co.za
-
Permalink Reply by Linda Neill on
-
Thank you. As you I am passionate about HR. How would you like us to help?
The Skills Portal
Get the latest news and information on skills development and training from The Skills Portal website.
* The Skills Portal International
* Manage your career
* Leader.co.za
* Mba.co.za
Badge
© 2010 Created by Alan Hammond
