(a) the willingness to work best for the GSP staff ranking and to be consistent with the GSP staff performance agreement; (iii) to contact GSP staff and others involved (including the Agency`s human resources and the head of the supervisory authority) to discuss unsatisfactory results and facilitate a collective understanding of the nature of unsatisfactory performance. (c) constructive participation in the Agency`s performance management processes, including career interviews; The starting point for GSP performance management is a clear, transparent and user-friendly policy. New performance management directorates will come into effect on July 1, 2015, forcing GSP employees to take on more responsibility for their own performance. GSP agencies must also ensure that their strategies and practices focus on correcting unsatisfactory performance and recognizing service providers. (f) when informed that the performance of GSP staff is unsatisfactory and constructive with: It should come as no surprise that an inefficient performance has an impact on an agency`s performance in relation to its business plan, but also entails costs to the taxpayer. An audit carried out by ANAO in 2005 highlighted the considerable costs to agencies for paying performance-based wage increases, based on inefficient and poorly implemented performance management systems. (iii) that, where the performance of a GSP staff member is found to be unsatisfactory, the worker has a responsibility to cooperate constructively with his or her supervisor and others involved (including Agency staff) to resolve performance issues and implement results; Supervisors are essential to the success of performance management systems, so they need the tools to effectively manage their employees and deal with unsatisfactory performance situations. The message to GSP agencies and their employees in the future is clear: poor performance is intolerable. (d) each member of the Agency`s GSP staff receives feedback from supervisory authorities on their performance, in accordance with the Agency`s performance management policies and processes; Some of these measures now exist, albeit inconsistently, and incentives generally act to encourage positive behaviour. However, the gap at the moment is what happens when managers do not assume their responsibility for staff development or fulfill their responsibilities. Where are the real account capabilities that make them do it; What happens if they don`t? A truly coherent and insurmountable process is needed and controls must be carried out and balanced to ensure that it is applied fairly throughout the territory. Too often, everyone at the management level in a department will know that a certain manager is not doing his job, but nothing happens – employees, customers and the company suffer, but the manager simply sleeps from one role to another and creates chaos.

Skilled managers, who are responsible for the evolving staff, seem to be a great idea, but not without real responsibility at all levels. It is not normal for executives to require middle managers to manage their performance (and underperformance) and not do the same with lazy/provocative/inadequate middle managers. This ensures that we will eliminate these double standards, that is, how will we know that everyone in the chain is doing the right thing, because that is what it will take to change the GSP and really move forward. Doing what we say requires checks and balances! Do the opposite of what the Brisbane Delivery Centre does and follow the agreement of the workers when it comes to broadband. Give employees the opportunity to take action so they can develop their skills. Imagine that. You are the line manager of an employee at the GSP level. The employee is underperforming and you implement a performance improvement process.