AUTHENTICATION AT DFA

GUIDELINES ON AUTHENTICATION

FUNCTIONS

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) performs its authentication function/services in the context of 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Given the existence of a multi-state system, aforesaid Convention stipulates that, among other things, the various kind of documents sourced from particular sovereign states (e.g. public documents, private documents, and commercial documents) shall have validity or operative effect in another sovereign state's legal jurisdiction after subjected to an agreed upon authentication procedure.

The DFA through the Authentication Division-Office of Consular Affairs may authenticate an act, deed documents etc. executed or sourced within Philippine legal jurisdiction by way of certifying said act, as follows: a) executed before a local notary public officer authorized to execute such functions, b) testified to by a public seal, c) rendered public by the authority of a competent magistrate, d) certified as being a copy of a public register. When these acts, deeds or documents have been duly authenticated by the Department, the receiving embassies or consulates or any other foreign legal entities are, in effect assured that aforesaid documents are in order or have been legalized in accordance with proper procedure. Foreign Embassies, Consulates and foreign legal entities may or may not require the authentication of documents sourced from the Philippines for use within their respective jurisdictions. However, under rules of reciprocity in international relations, sovereign states normally require authentication of foreign documents to be used.

The DFA authentication attest to the genuineness of the signature appearing on the attached certification for the purpose of identifying a specific document and giving credence to the official acts of the notary public or certifying officer thereon for use, if and when required, as instrument of evidence in foreign countries. As such, the DFA certification/authentication does not, per se, authenticate the validity/efficacy/enforceability of the basic document itself. However, the Authentication Officer is impressed with duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness whereby he must inform himself of the facts to which he intends to certify and avoid participation in illegal enterprises.

AUTHENTICATION PROCEDURES

A. PUBLIC/OFFICIALS DOCUMENTS

Public / Official Documents	Authenticating Government Agencies (in consecutive order)
1. Birth Certificate/Death Certificate Marriage Contract or Certificate Certification of No Marriage Record	a. NSO b. Malacañang c. DFA
2. Certificate of Muslim Tribal Affiliation* Certificate of Conversion to Islam	a. OMA* b. Shari'a Court, Zamboanga c. OMA d. NSO e. Malacañang* f. DFA*
3. NBI Clearance	a. NBI b. Malacañang c. DFA
4.LTO Certificate Driver’s License	a. LTO (Main Office, Quezon City) b. Malacañang c. DFA
5. Report of Rating Certificate of Registration Certification of Good Standing Professional License	a. PRC b. Malacañang c. DFA
6. Community Tax Certificate	a. City Treasurer’s Office b. Malacañang c. DFA
7. Barangay Certification	a. Barangay Chairman b. Mayor c. Malacañang d. DFA
8. Voter’s ID/Certificate	a. COMELEC Manila b. Malacañang c. DFA
9. Travel Clearance of a Filipino Minor without Accompanying Parents	a. DSWD b. Malacañang c. DFA
10. Alien Certificate of Registration Immigrant/Native-Born Residence Certificate	a. Bureau of Immigration b. Malacañang c. DFA

B. PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

1. SCHOOL RECORDS
College Diploma and Transcript of Records Special Order Certificate of Enrollment/Report of Grades Certification of Graduation	a. School b. CHED (depending on the region) c. Malacañang d. DFA
Secondary/Elementary Diploma and Form 137-A, Special Order Certification of Graduation Certificate of Enrollment/Report of Grades	a. School b. DECS (depending on the region) c. Malacañang d. DFA
Diploma on Technical and Skills Development Courses Transcript of Records Certificate of Enrollment/Report of Grades Certification of Graduation	a. School b. TESDA (depending on the region) c. Malacañang d. DFA
2. PERSONAL RECORDS
Medical Certificate AIDS-Free Certificate	a. Clinic/Hospital b. DOH-BLR c. Malacañang d. DFA
3. AFFIDAVITS
Employment Certificates Job Description Training Certificates Agreement/Contract Affidavit of Support and Guaranty Affidavit of Parental Consent / Single Status Affidavit of Loss Special Power of Attorney GOSI Forms Doctor’s Affidavit	a. Notary Public b. Regional Trial Court c. Malacañang d. DFA
Court Decision/Court Order	a. Regional Trial Court b. Malacañang c. DFA

C. COMMERCIAL & EXPORT DOCUMENTS

Certificate of Origin Commercial Invoice Packing List/Recap Sheet Bill of Lading/Air Way Bill Shipping Agent’s Certificate Quarantine Clearance Certificate Weight Certification/Weight List Manufacturer’s Certificate Beneficiary Certificate Commodity Clearance Insurance Certification Others

For Certificates of Origin issued by the Bureau of Customs: a. Bureau of Customs b. Malacañang c. DFA Otherwise, and for all other documents: a. PCCI b. DFA

D. FOREIGN DOCUMENTS

a. Consul of Philippine Embassy/Consulate or of concerned Foreign Embassy in the Philippines b. DFA

DIRECTORY OF OFFICES

DFA Authentication Division, Office of Consular Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs South wing Lobby, 2330 Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, Metro Manila Tel. No. 834-4000 Authentication fee: P100.00 Processing period: Five (5) working days	DECS-NCR Department of Education, Culture and Sports-National Capital Region Misamis St., Bago Bantay, Quezon City Tel. No. 921-5630 Authentication fee: P30.00 Processing period: Five (5) working days
Malacañang Authentication Unit, Legal Office, Office of the President, Malacañang 1610 J.P. Laurel St., Watson Building, Malacañang , San Miguel, Manila Tel. No. 733-36-03 Authentication fee: P50.00 Processing period: One (1) working day	DOH-BLR Bureau of Licensing and Regulation, Department of Health San Lazaro Compound, Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila / Tel. No. 711-6982 Authentication fee: P10.00 Processing period: Two (2) working days
CHED-NCR Commission on Higher Education-National Capital Region 6th floor, Pacific Corporate Center, 131 West Avenue, Quezon City Tel. No. 373-5551 to 53 Authentication fee: P40.00 Processing period: Five (5) working days	DSWD-NCR Department of Social Welfare and Development-National Capital Region San Rafael St., Legarda, Manila Tel. No. 734-8637 No fee for Travel Clearance Processing period: Five (5) working days
COMELEC Commission on Elections Intramuros, Manila 527-9362	LTO Land Transportation Office East Avenue, Quezon City Tel. No. 926-7081 Authentication fee: P30.00 Processing period: Three (3) to four (4) working days
NSO National Statistics Office Filing: East Avenue, Quezon City (in front of Social Security System (SSS) building) Tel. No. 927-8672 NSO Hotline Plus (Teleserv):737-1111 Releasing: Vibal Building, EDSA cor. Times St., West Triangle, Quezon City Authentication fee/Processing Period: P25.00 for birth, marriage and death certificates/Average of Seven (7) days P25.00 for Certificates of Conversion to Islam P80 for Certification of No Marriage Record/Average of Fifteen (15) days	PCCI Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry 14th Floor, Multinational Bank Corporation Center 6805 Ayala Avenue, Makati City Tel.No. 843-3374 / 843-3176 Certification/Authentication fee: < $10,000 bracket: -P250 for non-members -P100 for members $10,000 to $20,000 bracket: -P300 for non-members -P125 for members Released on the same day
NBI National Bureau of Investigation Taft Ave., Ermita, Manila Tel. No. 551-0249 Authentication fee: P100.00 Processing period: Three (3) to four (4) working days	OMA Office of Muslim Affairs Ablaza Bldg., 117 E. Rodriguez Ave., 1102 Quezon City Tel. No. 742-2711 to 16 Authentication fee: P10.00 for documentary stamp P10.00 for lamination Processing period:Fifteen (15) working days
PRC Professional Regulations Commission P. Paredes, Sampaloc, Manila Tel. No. 735-4671 to 74 Authentication fee: P50.00 No fixed processing time	RTC Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the area where Notary Public holds office/where affidavit was notarized (e.g. RTC of Manila, RTC of Pasay etc.)
TESDA-NCR Technical Education and Skills Development Authority-NCR TESDA Complex, East Service Road, South Superhighway, Taguig, M. Mla. Tel. No. 815-3343 Authentication fee: P30.00 No fixed processing time

NOTICE:

All applications should be made in person by the applicant except under certain circumstances (e.g. documents filed by his/her immediate kin).

Application not paid within 24 hours shall be disposed of.

WARNING

Any spurious, fake, or tampered documents submitted for authentication are subject to outright seizure upon proper determination by the DFA Authentication Officer. Holder of said documents, as well as fixers are liable to prosecution.

ANOTHER TAKE AT PMS

Get Rid of the Performance Review! It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.

By Samuel A. Culbert

You can call me "dense," you can call me "iconoclastic," but I see nothing constructive about an annual pay and performance review. It's a mainstream practice that has baffled me for years.

To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountabl e, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It's a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork.

Failing Grade

• The Promise: Performance reviews are supposed to provide an objective evaluation that helps determine pay and lets employees know where they can do better.
• The Problems: That's not most people's experience with performance reviews. Inevitably reviews are political and subjective, and create schisms in boss-employee relationships. The link between pay and performance is tenuous at best. And the notion of objectivity is absurd; people who switch jobs often get much different evaluations from their new bosses.
• The Solution: Performance previews instead of reviews. In contrast to one-side-accountabl e reviews, performance previews are reciprocally accountable discussions about how boss and employee are going to work together even more effectively than they did in the past. Previews weld fates together. The boss's skin is now in the game.

The alleged primary purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better or differently. But I see the primary purpose quite differently. I see it as intimidation aimed at preserving the boss's authority and power advantage. Such intimidation is unnecessary, though: The boss has the power with or without the performance review.

And yes, I have an alternative in mind that will get people and corporations a great deal more of what they actually need.

To make my case, I offer seven reasons why I find performance reviews ill-advised and bogus.

TWO PEOPLE, TWO MIND-SETS

Let's start with an obvious reason: The mind-sets held by the two participants in a performance review work at cross-purposes. The boss wants to discuss where performance needs to be improved, while the subordinate is focused on such small issues as compensation, job progression and career advancement. The boss is thinking about missed opportunities, skill limitations and relationships that could use enhancing, while the subordinate wants to put a best foot forward believing he or she is negotiating pay. All of this puts the participants at odds, talking past each other. At best, the discussion accomplishes nothing. More likely, it creates tensions that carry over to their everyday relationships.

Then there are second-order problems. A subordinate who objects to a characterization of faults runs the risk of adding another to the boss's list: "defensiveness and resistance to critique." And the boss who gets her mind turned around by a subordinate's convincing argument runs the risk of having a bigger boss think she failed to hold the line on what had been decided and budgeted. Good luck to her when she next gets evaluated.

PERFORMANCE DOESN'T DETERMINE PAY

Another bogus element is the idea that pay is a function of performance, and that the words being spoken in a performance review will affect pay. But usually they don't. I believe pay is primarily determined by market forces, with most jobs placed in a pay range prior to an employee's hiring.

Raises are then determined by the boss, and the boss's boss, largely as a result of the marketplace or the budget. The performance review is simply the place where the boss comes up with a story to justify the predetermined pay. If the raise is lower than the subordinate expects, the boss has to say, "We can work to get it higher in the future, and here are the things you need to do to get to that level." Or the boss can say, "I think you walk on water, but I got push-back from H.R. and next year we'll try again."

In other words, too many lines spoken in a performance review are a cover story for the truth and have little to do with performance. Even when it's a positive review, the words spoken are likely to be more aimed at winning the subordinate's gratitude than giving a candidly accurate description.

OBJECTIVITY IS SUBJECTIVE

Most performance reviews are staged as "objective" commentary, as if any two supervisors would reach the same conclusions about the merits and faults of the subordinate. But consider the well-observed fact that when people switch bosses, they often receive sharply different evaluations from the new bosses to whom they now report.

To me, this is just further proof that claiming an evaluation can be "objective" is preposterous, as if any assessment is independent of that evaluator's motives in the moment. Missing are answers to questions like, "As seen by whom?" and "Spun for what?" Implying that an evaluation is objective disregards what everyone knows: Where you stand determines what you see.

The absurdity is even more obvious when bosses—as they so often do—base their reviews on anonymous feedback received from others. This illogic is highlighted in the contemporary performance- reviewing fad called "360-degree feedback." Hate mail, I suppose, is similarly "objective." People are told, "I can't tell you who said this," as if the alleged truth-teller has no ax to grind and the allegation is unrelated to a specific motive or a disagreement in a relationship. Come on! Isn't "anonymous" just a slicker way for people to push what's in their political interests to establish, without having their biases and motives questioned?

What will it take for people to really understand that any critique is as much an expression of the evaluator's self-interests as it is a subordinate's attributes or imperfections? To my way of thinking, the closest one can get to "objective" feedback is making an evaluator's personal preferences, emotional biases, personal agendas and situational motives for giving feedback sufficiently explicit, so that recipients can determine what to take to heart for themselves.

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

Employees all come with their own characteristics, strong suits and imperfections that they orchestrate in every attempt to perform their best. Because no two people come similarly equipped, they draw upon the unique pluses and minuses they were endowed with at birth along with compensatory assets they subsequently developed.

And yet in a performance review, employees are supposed to be measured along some predetermined checklist. In almost every instance what's being "measured" has less to do with what an individual was focusing on in attempting to perform competently and more to do with a checklist expert's assumptions about what competent people do. This is why pleasing the boss so often becomes more important than doing a good job. Create a positive impression and the boss will score you high on any dimension presented.

Worse, bosses apply the same rating scale to people with different functions. They don't redo the checklist for every different activity. As a result, bosses reduce their global sentiments to a set of metrics that captures the unique qualities of neither the person nor the job.

Maybe, for instance, there's a guy who doesn't voice his viewpoint when he disagrees with something said. Does that mean he should be graded down for being a conflict-avoider— as if the boss's in-your-face way of communicating is superior? He may be seen doing a bad job solely based on an incompatibility of styles that may have little to do with actual performance.

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT IS IMPEDED

The drive for improvement goes on in big and little ways at work. You would think that the person in the best position to help somebody improve would be his or her boss.

Yet, thanks to the performance review, the boss is often the last person an employee would turn to.

Why is that?

The No. 1 reason is that employees want to turn to somebody who understands their distinctive talents and way of thinking, or knows them sufficiently well to appreciate the reasons behind the unique ways they are driven to operate. By contrast, people resist help from those who they believe can't get them in proper focus, especially when they have tried on many occasions to tell them.

What's more, people don't want to pay a high price for acknowledging their need for improvement—which is exactly what they would do if they arm the boss with the kind of personal information he or she would need to help them develop. It could all come back to haunt them in the performance review. No wonder the developmental discussions the boss wants to inject at the time of a performance review so often get categorized by subordinates as gun-to-the-head intimidation requiring false acquiescence, lip-service agreement and insincere, appearance-correcti ng actions.

DISRUPTION TO TEAMWORK

Managers can talk until they are blue in the face about the importance of positive team play at every level of the organization, but the team play that's most critical to ensuring that an organization runs effectively is the one-on-one relationship between a boss and each of his or her subordinates.

The performance review undermines that relationship.

That's because the performance review is so one-sided, giving the boss all the power. The boss in the performance review thinks of himself or herself as the evaluator, and doesn't engage in teamwork with the subordinate. It isn't, "How are we going to work together as a team?" It's, "How are you performing for me?" It's not our joint performance that's at issue. It's the employee's performance that's a problem.

All of which leads to inauthentic behavior, daily deception and a ubiquitous need for subordinates to spin all facts and viewpoints in directions they believe the boss will find pleasing. It defeats any chance that the boss will hear what subordinates actually think.

Here's a simple example: In a performance review, the boss cites a subordinate's missing a high-profile meeting as cause for a reduced rating. What if the reason was something personal—perhaps a son picked up by the police—that the employee doesn't want to reveal? Why not reveal it? Because one-way accountability inevitably creates distrust. Does the boss self-reflect and ask, "What did I do, or should I be doing, to build up the trust?" No, the boss faults the guy for secretiveness. It's a vicious cycle.

IMMORALITY OF JUSTIFYING CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT

I believe it's immoral to maintain the facade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement, when it's clear they lead to more bogus activities than valid ones. Instead of energizing individuals, they are dispiriting and create cynicism. Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.

The net result is a resource violation, and I think citations should be issued. If it's a publicly held company, shareholder value gets decreased. If it's a governmental organization, time is lost that could be spent in pursuit of the public good. And what participants learn in the process has more to do with how to survive than with meaningful self-development.

I've often thought that every organization should be considered partially a public entity since they exist, in part, to provide meaningful activities for the people who work in them. Skills and mind-sets acquired at work go home with people to affect family, community, culture and even the world. The more positive an atmosphere we can create at work, the more positive an impact it has at home. In short, what goes around comes around.

SO, WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?

The alternative to one-side-accountable, boss-administered/ subordinate- received performance reviews is two-side, reciprocally accountable, performance previews.

Let me explain.

The boss's assignment is to guide, coach, tutor, provide oversight and generally do whatever is required to assist a subordinate to perform successfully. That's why I claim that the boss-direct report team should be held jointly accountable for the quality of work the subordinate performs. I'm sick and tired of hearing about subordinates who fail and get fired, while bosses, whose job it was to ensure subordinate effectiveness, get promoted and receive raises in pay.

Holding performance previews eliminates the need for the boss to spout self-serving interpretations about what already has taken place and can't be fixed. Previews are problem-solving, not problem-creating, discussions about how we, as teammates, are going to work together even more effectively and efficiently than we've done in the past. They feature descriptive conversations about how each person is inclined to operate, using past events for illustrative purposes, and how we worked well or did not work well individually and together.

The preview structure keeps the focus on the future and what "I" need from you as "teammate and partner" in getting accomplished what we both want to see happen. It doesn't happen only annually; it takes place each time either the boss or the subordinate has the feeling that they aren't working well together.

Realistic assessment of someone's positive qualities requires replacing scores on standardized checklists with inquiry. As a result, step No. 1 in giving effective feedback almost always involves "active questioning" inquiry. Inquiry contrasts with most performance reviews, which begin with how the evaluator sees the individual and what that boss has already decided most needs enhancing. Both participants need an answer to the most significant issue at hand: "Given who I am and what I'm learning about this other individual, what's the best way for us to complement one another in getting work accomplished with excellence?" If in the process the other person decides to change and develop, so much the better.

Bosses should be asking all the questions that occur to them in inquiring about how a subordinate thinks he or she can best perform the job. Then, after they have exhausted their questions, they should ask the subordinate for what else they need to know. At a minimum, they should be asking "How will you be going about it?" and "Specifically, what help do you need from me?" Why not get it all when, at the end of the day, the boss still has the authority to play ultimate decider?

Some of you may also ask if the performance review goes away, how do we prepare the groundwork if we want to fire somebody? For the better, I'd argue: Take away the performance review, and people will find more direct ways of accomplishing that task.

Substituting performance previews for performance reviews promotes straight-talk relationships for people who are up to it. It welds fates together because the discussion will be about what the boss-subordinate team accomplishes together, which I believe is the valid unit to hold accountable. It's the boss's responsibility to find a way to work well with an imperfect individual, not to convince the individual there are critical flaws that need immediate correcting, which is all but guaranteed to lead to unproductive game playing and politically inspired back-stabbing.

There are many bosses who would like to change that game, but they feel handcuffed by the rules already in play. I'd like to believe that if given the chance, they would embrace a system that allows them just as much authority—but in a way that promotes trust, not intimidation.

Keep in mind, of course, that improvement is each individual's own responsibility. You can only make yourself better. The best you can do for others is to develop a trusting relationship where they can ask for feedback and help when they see the need and feel sufficiently valued to take it. Getting rid of the performance review is a necessary, and affirming, step in that direction.

Dr. Culbert is a consultant, author and professor of management at the UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles. He can be reached at smrfeedback@ mit.edu

VERY BAD BOSSES

Here another article I really find so true to my recent experiences...


HR Productivity;- Bad Bosses Do More Than Kill Productivity -They Can Kill Employees

It seems there's always a steady supply of sympathy available for anyone stuck working under a bad boss. We've all been there at one time or another, slaving under a tyrant who somehow manages to survive in this world without people skills. Heck, sometimes the boss even knows it's a problem.

Consider this: When I wrote The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book in 2005, the book revealed that 70 percent of people do not handle conflict and stress effectively at work, just 36 percent understand their emotions as they happen and only 15 percent of people feel respected and valued at work.

According to a recent study published in Human Resource Executive magazine, a third of U.S. employees waste at least 20 hours of work time each month complaining about their bosses. Lost productivity from employees who are dissatisfied with their bosses results in the loss of $360 billion each year for U.S corporations, according to Gallup Poll. If there's one hard truth the Gallup Poll has taught these corporations in the past decade, it's that people may join companies, but they will leave bosses.

No one influences an employee's morale and productivity more than his or her supervisor. It's that simple. Yet, as common as this knowledge may seem, it clearly hasn't been enough to change the way managers and organizations treat people. Few companies recognize the degree to which managers are the vessels of a company's culture, and even fewer work diligently to ensure their vessels hold the knowledge and skills that motivate employees to perform, feel satisfied and love their jobs.

In the days of a strong dollar, bulging tech bubble and robust housing market, people working for a bad boss had options. Careers were mobile, and talent was in short supply. It was a snap to pack up and leave. But nowadays, things are decidedly different. Jobs are scarce, and the prudent worker stays put, even if he or she is working under what I like to call the seagull manager.

The roots of seagull management can be traced back to the days when "micromanager" was the worst non-expletive you could utter behind your boss' back. Managers' fear of this label has grown so intense, they keep their distance from employees, assuming a good boss is one who spends as little time as possible breathing down people's necks.

Some managers can even stick it out for a while. They keep their distance. They give people room to breath. That is, until they spot someone who needs their help. But instead of taking the time to get the facts straight and working alongside their staff to realize a viable solution, reformed micromanagers swoop in at the last minute, squawk at everybody and deposit steaming piles of formulaic advice before abruptly taking off and leaving behind an even bigger mess.

Seagull managers interact with their employees only when there's a fire to put out. Even then, they move in and out so hastily — and put so little thought into their approach — they make bad situations worse by frustrating and alienating those who need them the most.

Today, seagull managers are breeding like wildfire. As companies flatten in response to the struggling economy, they are gutting management layers and leaving behind managers with more autonomy, greater responsibility and more people to manage. That means they have less time and less accountability to manage people.

It's easy to spot a seagull manager when you're on the receiving end of the airborne dumps, but the manager doing the swooping, squawking and dumping often is unaware of the negative impact of his or her behavior. That's where the talent leader comes in. Your managers need to be equipped with skills that will enable them to succeed in the primary purpose of their jobs — managing people — even when competing pressures and priorities monopolize their attention.

To minimize the negative effects of seagull behavior in the workplace, you don't want each manager addressing whether or not he or she is a seagull manager. Each manager must discover when and where he or she succumbs to seagull tendencies. Every single one of us is a seagull manager sometimes, in some situations, with some people.

Once managers understand this, they can follow strategies to eradicate the negative influences of seagull behavior:

1. Make Sure Expectations Are Full-Fledged. The seagull manager creates the need to swoop in and set the team straight; the superior manager gets everyone headed in the right direction from the very beginning by ensuring expectations are fully revealed.

2. Get Communication to Click. The rare visit from the seagull manager results in a lot of squawking; the superior manager maintains a steady flow of clear, reciprocal communication.

3. Keep Your Paws On Performance. The seagull manager manages his or her team's performance by swooping in and dumping on everybody, the superior manager ensures he or she is present to deliver positive and negative feedback in small, digestible doses.

Seagull managers aren't just a U.S. phenomenon. After reading a study that found employees have lower blood pressure on the days they worked for a supervisor they think is fair, researchers from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health decided to take a closer look at this phenomenon. It followed British civil servants for 15 years to see if the type of boss one works for has any impact on long-term, physical health.

The researcher's findings cast a grave shadow on the otherwise humorous metaphor of a seagull manager. The team from Helsinki found seagull-type managerial behaviors lead to a much higher incidence of employee coronary heart disease. In fact, employees working for a seagull manager were 30 percent more likely to develop coronary heart disease than those who do not.

What's more, the incidence of coronary heart disease — the No. 1 killer in Western societies — was measured after the researchers had removed the influence of typical risk factors, such as age, ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, socioeconomic position, cholesterol level, obesity, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity.

In too many U.S. organizations senior leadership is unschooled in the profoundly negative impact seagull managers have on their bottom line. The very individuals with the authority to alter the course of company culture lack the facts that would impel them to do so.

Lucky for senior leadership in your company, they hired you to manage talent, and seagull managers won't be pecking at their bottom line for long.

Dr. Travis Bradberry

This is also an Inspirational Blog/Story I came across

Getting a Job in Dubai within 3 months

To start with let me give you a hint of who I am - my name is Adam Christian C. Roxas, my friends call me adam or ian (last 3 letters of my 2nd name), I’m 25 yo, a web enthusiast, avid pinoy indy music lover and a God chaser.

As a professional, well, i’ve had my share of work experiences delving into computers so just check my site - www.adamroxas.cdofirst.org to further give you an idea of where I stand as a skilled I.T worker.

Enough said about me - so lets move into the gist of this. “Getting a Job in Dubai Within 3 Months” - I only have 3 days left until D-day and I am off to dubai where I will test the waters and seek for a more suitable, high-earning, tax-free and challlenging job as a web developer or programmer or graphics designer or systems support or anything that has to do with computers as it is my forte so to speak. In preparations for this I’ve made an online portfolio, researched on avaible I.T. jobs on the net and applied online, did a little research on the place - the way of living, cost of living and etc. and above all else I prayed to God - seeking his will and his guidance.

So far, my preparation is a bit off since I still don’t have my visa on hand but I was promised by my sister that I will get it as soon as I am in Manila the day before my departure. I’m a bit frustrated and worried since I am the kind of guy that prepares for everything before hand (i am an O.C.) and i find it hard to digest the fact that my preparation checklist is not complete but i depend on God’s provision and His timing - He gave me this opportunity and I am made calm by His presence all throughout my journey.

Ive seen a post on youtube about this guy who, for 5 months, still did not have a job and suggested to all pinoys to cancel their plans of coming to dubai and look for a job - “huwag na kayong pumunta dito mahirap mg hanap ng trabaho dito!” - as he exclaimed. Well, that’s according to him and the way he dressed up (unpresentable, not corporate, not formal) - shows his insincerity and is undeserving to have a job. Forgive me if I am rude but i just find it so degrading for people to disseminate such words of discouragement. I always say to myself to take a chance, test the waters, take a step because its the only way for us to know our limits. If you believe you can do it then why not? If there’s one thing I learned in life it is that “Life is tough” - nothing comes easy - you don’t go and venture into another place seeking for a good life and expecting that it will be served to you in a platter! You have to work harder, sleep lesser and use your head to have a better-financially-stable life. And of course, in everything you do always put God first (as my Girlfriend always tells me). Another lesson learned: “Never let the opinion of others be the opinion of you” - another wise word I’ve qoute from my Girlfriend.

So what are my chances of having a good job after 3 months? This i do not know. One thing is for sure though that I am going to look for a job like I have never looked before, I am going to exert my effort like nothing before, I am going to pray and depend on God like nothing before and at the end of the day I will thank God for the strength, the provisions, the love and the blessings for it was nothing compared before.

This entry was posted on August 21, 2008 at 3:01 am and is filed under Getting a Job in Dubai within 3 months with tags I.T. Jobs in Dubai, Life in Dubai, Pinoy in Dubai. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.