Job Analysis


A job analysis is a systematic exploration of the activities within a job. It is a technical procedure used to define the duties, responsibilities, and accountabilities of a job. This analysis involves the identification and description of what is happening on the job, accurately and precisely identifying the required tasks, the knowledge, and the skills necessary for performing them, and the conditions under which they must be performed.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, and my Lectures.

Core Values


The professional and the institution for which the professional works should compile a relatively brief list of core values. These are values that help determine what the priorities are and how one aspires to act. Ten core ethical values are described:

  1. Honesty (truth telling, candid, openness)
  2. Integrity (act on convictions, courageous, advocacy, leadership by example)
  3. Promise keeping (fulfilling the spirit of commitment)
  4. Fidelity (loyalty, confidentiality)
  5. Fairness (justice, equal treatment, diversity, independence)
  6. Caring (compassion, kindness)
  7. Respect (human dignity and uniqueness
  8. Citizenship (respect for law, social consciousness)
  9. Excellence (quality of work)
  10. Accountability (responsibility, independence)

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, and my Lectures.

Change and Leadership


Change is nothing new to leaders or to their organizations. Around 500BC, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus noted that: “You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters are continually flowing on.” He was one of the first Western philosophers to address the idea that the universe is in a constant state of flux.

As we move further from the “stable state,” effective change leadership has become a challenging calling. Today in the language of business, organizations, academia, and consultancy, the word “change” has come to mean different things to different people. We need to define “change leadership” in a way that establishes a congruence between leadership and the benefits of the change being implemented; and articulate it properly. Change can refer to any of the following and more:

  • External changes in the market/industry, technology, customers, competitors, social, political and natural environment;
  • Internal changes that determine how the organization reacts and adapts to the external changes at great speed;
  • Top-down programs such as business process reengineering, restructuring, cultural change, for example, and
  • Business transformation programs which can be described as comprehensive organizational initiatives.

It can also be a combination of all the above.

Major change is those situations in which corporate performance requires most people throughout the organization to learn new behaviors and skills. These new skills must add up to a competitive advantage for the enterprise, allowing it to produce better and better performance in shorter and shorter time frames.

Change leadership can be defined as altering groups to the need for changes in the way things are done; mobilizing and energizing groups; and tapping fully into the potential and the capacity of the organization. It involves taking the responsibility to champion the change initiative and effort through building and maintaining commitment and support. The situation determines who emerges as the leader and what style of  leadership he or she has to adopt. The situation will also determine the core skills needed to lead in that particular situation. Therefore, one can no longer discuss leadership in general terms.

The leader and the style of leadership required in a stable organization will differ from that which is required in an organization under threat. This is because leadership styles and behaviors are likely to be critical in times of threats.

The qualities, characteristics, and skills required in a leader are determined to a large extent by the demands of the situation in which he or she is to function as a leader.

In any major change program, there are many leaders because there are many people at many levels in the hierarchy who play different critical roles during the change process, including the CEO. In modern complex organizations, the notion of an ill-seeing, all knowing leader is unrealistic. Instead, different individuals assume leadership in situations where they have a unique competence or accountability. All the non-CEO change leaders are every bit as essential to creating high-performing organizations as are the more visible and dynamic executive leaders. In essence, the change leader could be the CEO, a line leader, internal network, or a change community.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Board: Checklist


  • Who is responsible for ensuring that the board is effective and composed of directors that individually and collectively are competent?
  • Does the board evaluate its own effectiveness at least once a year?
  • What does the board do to benchmark itself against other boards.
  • Is the nature of the board and how it conducts its operations appropriate to the situation and circumstances of the company?
  • Is the board aware of its accountabilities to various stakeholders?
  • Does the board fully understand the requirements of the various stakeholders in the company?
  • Have the cross-functional and inter-organizational processes that deliver these requirements been identified?
  • Are the individual members of the board aware of their legal duties and responsibilities as directors?
  • Has the board identified a distinctive purpose for the company, and agreed and shared a compelling vision?
  • Has the board agreed and shared clear goals and values, established measurable objectives and put a performance management teamwork in place?
  • Have the ‘vital few’ actions that must be done been identified, and roles and responsibilities relating to their achievement been allocated?
  • Does the board pay sufficient attention to the implementation of objectives and policies?
  • Are the enablers, critical success factors and resource requirements for implementation in place?
  • Are the people of the organization motivated, empowered and equipped with the necessary skills to make it happen?

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Public-private partnership


In this era of modernization in many aspects of public administration, most developing countries continue to follow century-old concepts and structures. They seriously need structural adjustment thereby launching legislative and administrative reforms, which stress a reconsideration of the role of the public administration in the conditions of democratization and market-economy. A greater emphasis needs to be placed on effectiveness of the public administration. The practice and legislation of such countries should affect patterns of the role of public sector and influence fundamental features of the system of governance. A common goal should be to introduce a more contractual, participative, discretionary style of relationship: between different levels and agencies in administrative apparatus; between the decision-making authorities and operating units; and between administrative agencies and producing units, public or private.

A major reform objective in public sector management should be to increase, within the framework of democratic accountability, cost effectiveness in the public provision of goods and services. Both citizens and public administration accept the need for improved quality in the public sector.

They need to hold high the aim of structuring an effective mechanism for achieving policy objectives, determined at central, provincial and local levels for increasing efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in providing public services.

The legality and the efficiency of providing such public services are of great concern. Local authorities are empowered to do something that is intended to assist the carrying out any role.

Outsourcing is a way of contracting out one or more functions to specialist companies. This allows the public entity to concentrate on its core activities. There are three primary reasons for the public administration to outsource. The first is to achieve cost-effective provision of services. The second is to provide a choice for the citizens of producing and supplying public services of different qualities and kinds. The third is simply because there is no alternative due to a lack of staff with the requisite skills; need of relaxing the administrative burden, which somebody other could deal with even better and concentrating the attention on the core administrative matters; short deadlines for implementation. This last reason for outsourcing is to meet the needs, which exceed the capability of the public administration staff, because of a shortage of either staff or skills, or which give added flexibility to the administrative organization.

Thus, the outsourcing can be seen as a process through which relationships are managed and adjusted according to arrangements specified and conditions planned by the administrative authority in the contract documentation. The focus here is not on the legal issues of the contract rather than on the quality of contracting as a mechanism for achieving policy objectives determined at all levels of government for increasing efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. From this perspective the outsourcing by public administration can be considered as a joint commitment to partnership between public and private sector operating as a co-operative device for providing public goods and services.

The trend towards greater satisfaction of public needs and consumer empowerment underlies the role of outsourcing by public administration. The outsourcing is encouraged to secure higher quality of public works and services, whereby contracting managers are located closer to the consumer and so are better able to respond to their needs in actual delivery. The role of consumers and end-clients with respect to outsourcing can thus be increased. The strategies of improving responsiveness through outsourcing on the one hand, and hierarchical distribution of the administrative functions on the other, can be combined in a successful model of public service delivery. The administrative authorities – at federal, provincial and local levels – might participate in the specification of services and in the determination of contractual standards and terms of agreement.

As part of administrative reform outsourcing by public administration should be a high priority. The corresponding legislation should be based on three main principles—transparency, non-discrimination involving open selection criteria and open standards, specifications and standards regulated by law; and open competition.

The framework agreements are significant for ensuring the execution of the administrative power intent of the outsourced functions. The federal, provincial or local governments can use outsourcing as a tool for providing public services when carrying out their functions. They use outsourcing to get public results, which should be achieved when the governments exercise their administrative powers.

The outsourcing in some way can replace the direct administrative action. Such outsourcing has the compulsory nature same as this of the executive action which it replaces. The administration can use administrative or seek lawmaking authority to bring about the result it desires, if it is nonetheless outsourcing. A realistic view is that the process of deciding to outsource as well as the very process of outsourcing is a valid exercise of administrative power. The offered and agreed terms of the contract are also exercising of the administrative power. Once the contract signed, however, the particular relationships issued by outsourcing are moved under the regulations of the private law.

The government functioning can be improved by redefining its role: Policy-making instead of operative decision-making. It should stimulate tools for establishment of working, efficient, rational and fair practice, design of efficient allocation of financial and administrative wherewithal; transparency and control. The government must also realize that developing a training strategy for skills and incentives is badly needed.

The overall proportion of outsourcing in the field of public administration is generally expected to growing. Demand will increase for a variety of reasons.

Successful outsourcing, however, presupposes the existence of an efficient market. In

Pakistan the market for some categories of public goods and services is deficient of professionalism, integrity, and fair play. Such situation is creating conditions for corruption.

From another side, outsourcing itself contributes to developing the market.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Compelling Business Principles


The development of the business principles is a first stage for developing and raising the standards of practice in countering bribery. The fair business principles provide a practical tool to which companies can look for a comprehensive reference to good practice to counter bribery. Business principles are becoming an essential tool in the future for businesses and the companies of today should encourage using them as a starting point for developing their own anti-bribery systems or as a benchmark.

I had heard and even observed how corrupt practices are carried out in businesses that add the extras to win export orders. For toting up luster to the evenings of the visiting business partners particularly from Gulf States, they fix up their visits to discotheques and nightspots. They also maintain luxury flats outfitted with floozy beauties for making the stay of the business guests a unique affair.

Unfortunately, such unethical practices have sneaked into the system via some (not all) businesses in different countries. That’s what I personally experienced when once as member of a foreign business team visiting an Asian country and staying at a luxury hotel, a businessman tried unethical tricks to win business contracts. He called from the lobby and told about the undeserved and undesired gift he brought for me.

Years ago in a domestic flight to the capital in a country in Asia a passenger seated next to me told that he was visiting the capital about a government tender. He was confident that he would win the contract. When I asked about the source of his confidence he pointed to two girls seated in the rear and said, “Those butterflies (exquisite women) will make it happen.”

Most of companies contribute to election campaigns of this candidate or that. Interestingly sometimes some companies sponsor candidates of two opposing political parties. The idea is to get unjustifiable favors after the horse wins.

There can be endless list of such companies, which are ready to do anything to get business favors.

It is no mystery that a lapse in business ethics or even the appearance of one can significantly harm the reputation and business of a company. Once a company is suspected, accused, or found guilty of corporate wrongdoing, it often becomes subject to the scrutiny of governmental agencies, the corporate community and the general public.

Private sector organizations must now take account of increasingly stringent domestic and international regulatory frameworks. There is growing corporate awareness of the risks posed by bribery, particularly in the light of scandals, and the public is expecting greater accountability and probity from the corporate sector.

Emphasis needs to be laid on business principles for enterprises to prohibit bribery in any form whether direct or indirect. They should also commit to implementation of programs for countering bribery. These principles are based on a commitment to fundamental values of integrity, transparency and accountability. Firms should aim to create and maintain a trust-based and inclusive internal culture in which bribery is not tolerated.

Thus an enterprise’s anti-bribery efforts including values, policies, processes, training and guidance will become tools of future corporate governance and risk management strategies for countering bribery and unethical practices.

As part of civil society, at macro level, Federation of the Chambers of Commerce and Industry should work out a framework reflecting size of the companies, business sectors, potential risks and locations of operations. This should, clearly and in reasonable detail, articulate values, policies and procedures for preventing bribery from occurring in all activities under their effective control.

Such programs should be consistent with all laws relevant to countering bribery in all the jurisdictions in which an enterprise operates, particularly laws that are directly relevant to specific business practices.

At micro level each enterprise should develop programs in consultation with its employees, trade unions or other employee representative bodies. It should ensure that it is informed of all matters material to the effective development of the program by communicating with relevant interested parties.

While developing its program for countering bribery, the companies should analyze which specific areas pose the greatest risks from bribery. The programs should address the most prevalent forms of bribery relevant to each firm but at a minimum should cover areas such as bribes, political contributions, facilitation payments, gifts, hospitality and expenses.

A company should prohibit the offer, gift, or acceptance of a bribe in any form, including kickbacks, on any portion of a contract payment, or the use of other routes or channels to provide improper benefits to customers, agents, contractors, suppliers or employees of any such party or government officials.

It should also prohibit an employee from arranging or accepting a bribe or kickback from customers, agents, contractors, suppliers, or employees of any such party or from government officials, for the employee’s benefit or that of the employee’s family, friends, associates or acquaintances.

The enterprise, its employees or agents should not make direct or indirect contributions to political parties, organizations or individuals engaged in politics, as a way of obtaining advantage in business transactions.

Each company should publicly disclose all its political contributions, charitable contributions and sponsorships. It should ensure that charitable contributions and sponsorships are not being used as a subterfuge for bribery.

The enterprise should prohibit the offer or receipt of gifts, hospitality or expenses whenever such arrangements could affect the outcome of business transactions and are not reasonable and bona fide expenditures.

The board of directors, CEOs and senior management should demonstrate visible and active commitment to the implementation of the business principles.

The business organizations should assert elimination of bribery; demonstrate their commitment to countering bribery; and make a positive contribution to improving business standards of integrity, transparency and accountability wherever they operate. Business principles are going to evolve reflection of changes in anti-bribery practice as well as the lessons learned from their use and application by business.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Managing Customer Connections


Marketing is perhaps best understood as the function that manages the three primary connections between the organization and the customer.

o The customer-product connection: This involves linking the customer to the focal offering, particularly the knowledge and skills to discover customer needs and connect them to product design.

o The customer-service delivery connection: Included here are the design and delivery actions involved in providing a firm’s goods and services to the customer (for example, the performance of frontline sales and customer service employees).

o The customer-financial accountability connection: This refers to activities and processes that link customers to financial outcomes (for example, the link between customer satisfaction and profitability or customer retention efforts and financial outcomes).

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Public Servant – Types of Misconduct


A public servant will be guilty of misconduct if he:

  1. Is rude or offensive, or assaults or even threatens to assault or attempts to assault.
  2. Has disregard for the circumstances and concerns of the public in performing his official duties and in the making of decisions affecting them.
  3. Discriminates on account of race, gender, ethnic or social, religion, color, sex, age, disability, political persuasion, conscience, belief, culture or language.
  4. Uses his position in the public service to promote or to prejudice the interest of any political party.
  5. Conducts himself in a disgraceful, improper or unbecoming manner.
  6. Refuses to give basic information that is required by any citizen.
  7. Favors relatives and friends in work-related activities and abuses his authority or influences another employee, or is influenced to abuse his authority.
  8. Does not strive to achieve the objectives of his institution cost-effectively and in the public’s interest.
  9. Is not punctual in the execution of his duties and does not provide timely service.
  10. Does not execute his duties in a professional and competent manner.
  11. Is dishonest and not accountable in dealing with public funds and uses the public service’s property and other resources ineffectively, inefficiently, and for unauthorized official purposes.
  12. Does not promote sound, efficient, effective, transparent and accountable administration.
  13. In the course of his official duties, fails to report to the appropriate authorities, fraud, corruption, nepotism, misadministration and any other act which constitutes an offence, or which is prejudicial to the public interest.
  14. Does not give honest and impartial advice, based on all available relevant information.
  15. Does not honor the confidentiality of matters, documents and discussions, classified or implied as being confidential or secret.
  16. Does not dress and behave in a manner that enhances the reputation of the public service during official duties.
  17. Is negligent or indolent in the carrying out of his duties.
  18. Falsifies records or any other documentation.
  19. Is under the influence of an intoxication, illegal or habit forming drug including smoking whilst at work.
  20. Asks the citizens for a favor in return for some service or refuses to provide with a service unless he is paid a bribe.
  21. Uses or discloses any official information for personal gain or the gain of others.
  22. Undertakes paid work outside his official duties or uses office equipment for such work.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact Asif J. Mir.

Public Servant Matrix


Government employee, that would be anyone who is employed by any governmental entity, conducts himself as though he is a part of some controlling mechanism of authority and that he is in fact a public servant.  This is not simply attitudinal at the employee level, it is an institutional mindset that is evident in every memorandum, directive, policy and communiqué emanating from the top down.

In broad terms, a public servant must respect and protect every person’s dignity and his rights as contained in the Constitution. A member of the public (citizen) should be treated as a customer – he/she is entitled to be treated in an unbiased and impartial manner. In terms of the law any breach of the code is regarded as misconduct. If any citizen feels that a public servant has treated him/her badly or breached one of the rules of conduct he/she should be encouraged to report it to the relevant department, public entity or protection agency.

The strength of any government system lies in the extent to which it deserves and holds the respect of its citizens. This depends more than anything else on the integrity of its institutions. In the case of the Public Service, such integrity is built on conventions and practices that attach the highest importance to lawful conduct, due process, fairness, probity and professionalism.

A public service could claim to meet all of the performance targets set for it, and yet not merit respect if serious questions existed about the way it did its business, or about its regard for the rights of citizens, or about its internal control and management. Public servants, therefore, are as much servants of democracy as they are of the government of the day or their fellow citizens.

Lawful conduct, due process, fairness, probity and professionalism should be common values of our society. Unlike a good many others, we do not have to try to establish these against the currents of a strongly established contrary culture. But this also means that our citizens have naturally high expectations of their government and its institutions, and are sharp to criticize when they believe the expectations are not met.

Citizens expect departments to comply with the letter and the spirit of the law. They expect official decisions to be made fairly and impartially, public money to be spent wisely, and public assets to be used and cared for responsibly. They expect the conduct of officials to be above reasonable reproach, and official duties to be performed conscientiously and competently at all times. Where the integrity of the government system is concerned, they will accept nothing less than a full measure, and rightly so.

Unfortunately our government employees have the misimpression that they have been appointed as our betters, our superiors and rulers whose every order must be obeyed.  This is evident not only in their officious and rude behavior but also in the copious amounts of controlling regulations that we must follow when entering one of “their” facilities.  They expect that the citizens must abide law (the assumption is that the presumed or convicted criminals are being brought before the judge in chains) treat with suspicion, search and restrict them.

This lack of accountability is the result of many factors, the most major one being the total ignorance and propagandizing of the people. If we are to win this war for our freedom, an essential ingredient is going to be the transformation of the public consciousness from the attitude of serf to that of a sovereign citizen.  Any of us who have conducted ourselves as a sovereign, aware of our rights and the fact that the “authorities” who confront us are in fact our public servants, can testify that this will engender the most belligerent and often brutal behavior from said servants.

And yet we must be mindful of this fact, that any time anyone who is in fact a public servant speaks or acts, it must be constrained by the Constitution; else it is nothing more than lawlessness and brigand. When a public servant exceeds his proper authority (and I am not speaking of the authority illegally granted him by his own supervisors through some official sounding but legally hollow directive or decree), he is in fact nothing more than a lawbreaker.

Start referring to all government employees as public servants in your thinking and conversation, and see if it does not create change in your thinking.  While this alone is not going to rectify the current situation, it can be instrumental in changing the thinking and behavior of the person who can do the most to help us restore our Constitutional Republic, namely you. My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact Asif J. Mir.

Corporate Governance


The corporate culture of an organization can certainly affect what works in the environment. Tailor actions that fit into that culture. No organization is going to be able to change the culture unless it plans for it. My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations, makes them relevant, and suggests solutions for succes. For details please contact Asif J. Mir