When organizational capability is made so simple...

Last weekend, I attended a lecture by Prof Lens Cairns from Monash University on organizational capability. I am glad I did listen to his short talk!

For years I have been hearing of organizational capability, but no where have I gotten anywhere near how I understand it to be now that I have heard from Prof Lens. His use of a simple model (developed in collaboration with Prof John Stephenson of Middlesex University) to illuminate the concept has never been easier for non-academics to understand this concept. And now that I find this model so meaningful and illuminating, I have started to use the same model to help me out when I do learning programs in my own organization. My audience found it meaningful and easy to understand too.

Prof Lens drew a 4-square diagram with 'problem' and 'situation' on each axis as I reproduce below:

The area indicated by 'Y' in the diagram defines the circumstances where familiar problems occur within familiar situations. The ability to operate well in the 'Y' zone, be it individually or as an organization, is not capability but merely competence. Explicit skills such as technical know-how are knowledge that enables one to operate within this 'Y' zone comfortably. The area indicated by 'Z' defines circumstances where unfamiliar problems occur within unfamiliar situations. The ability to operate well in the 'Z' zone is what capability is all about. The skills that enable one to operate within the 'Y' zone are not necessarily those that enable us to be operational in the 'Z' zone. The challenge to individuals and to organizations then is in determining what skills and knowledge are required to enable the kind of 'Z-ness' in order to operate within the context of unfamiliar problems in unfamiliar situations. With the significance of knowledge economy and globalization in full swing, change is arguably the only thing that we can be sure of. Under such changing environment, problems and situations are likely seen as unfamiliar ('Z' zone). In other words, individuals and organizations are sure to be confronted with more unfamiliar problems and unfamiliar situations. Therefore, organizations and individuals alike, we are not capable unless we exhibit qualities or have the right knowledge that enable us to operate in such ever changing environment. That is organizational capability, or 'Z-ness' as Prof Lens puts it. This, I thought, was so enlightening! It is not that I have never seen this model before, but to hear it from Prof Lens in layman terms makes it so meaningful and easy to understand.

However, my ever inquisitive mind never stop working in the midst of enlightment. How does the model account for the transitional states between 'Y' and 'Z'? Isn't 'Y' once 'Z' yesterday, and 'Z' becoming 'Y' tomorrow? When inquired, Prof Lens responded (as what I have understood) that this model is not intended to reflect such transitions because doing so would add complexity to the model and hence make it difficult to truly understand the difference between competence and capability.

For me, the ability to grasp the capability concept has significance in my professional and personal capacity. As my work is in corporate learning, I am now be able to position learning initiatives in a way that tunes in well to the changing organizational rythm. As a parent, I am more conscious of the kind of development that is essential for my children to prepare them to face the changing world.

Thanks, Prof Lens.

When death is ever so imminent...

Just a few days ago, I hear of a friend's niece returning to Singapore from Australia and went straight into the hospital for some serious medical problems. She is only 29, just completed her studies, but ran into some health problems that is life threatening. She apparently had extremely low blood platelets, kidney failure, blinded, brain hemorrhage, and lung failure. She passed away yesterday. The cause of her whole series of problems has yet to be determined.

Yet a few days ago, the newspaper reported of a female employee who worked on her laptop for hours, then collapsed and passed away.

A few years ago, I had a fellow colleague (in his late 20s) from my department who ran into a major road accident in the US. For months he has been warded in ICU in the states, and later on returned home presumably for recovery. He was re-warded upon into a local hospital for blood infection problems, and passed away soon after with his luggage still unpacked.

When I was in my 20s, I had a schoolmate who passed away after he was allegedly stabbed in the stomach while he was returning home from a night out. He was a close friend of mine, so the lost I felt was bad and I didn't really know how to deal with losing a friend at that time.

As I think of these cases, as well as the many other lost of lives around the world be it young or old age, I feel a sense that death is ever so imminent and omnipresent. It is like death is always around us waiting for the chance to pounce. One wrong doing or a single lie may possibly unhook death from its hanging above our heads and drop right on us anytime anywhere. Honestly, I am not worried about the fact that one day I will die because I believe one have to come to terms with the fact that one will have to die one day, like it or not. Resisting it and be overly worried about it is only going to bring misery for as long as one is still alive.

I believe in the buddhist way of thinking, death is actually to be celebrated. I remember at my father's wake a few years ago, the monk encouraged us to hold our tears in front of my father's altar and explained that death to a buddhist represents a form of relieve from worldly sufferings, and hence is to be celebrated for his passage to the 'western' world. Of course I tried very hard, but failed to hold my tears on several occasions however hard I tried.

If death is to be celebrated, then in the buddhist point of view it is like a gift. We celebrate when we get a gift at the right time and right place, like a b'day gift on b'day in a b'day party, or x'mas gift on x'mas day under the x'mas tree. Which also means that claiming the gift of death will also have to depend on the time and place as well; gift of death on death day in a death party... make sense? Unfortunately, while some 'spiritual' forces may know when and where the gift is going to arrive on us, we are not able to know it ourselves, unlike b'day and x'mas day. Which is why it always seem arrive in shocking ways, leading to grieve and sadness as a result of our inability to anticipate the gift of death bestowing on our loved ones in advance.

The only preparation we can do is to think about what we want to be remembered for on D day. Then live a life that is compatible with those words in the eulogy.

When some get confused about the freedom of choice...

The local papers recently carry some debates about the issue of homosexuality as a result of MM Lee's suggestion to relax the law. As I read these debates, as well as MM's rationale, I see both camp's (for and against) arguments as being sound and logical from each of their points of views. While we are not at the stage where everyone has to choose sides, I hold a view that there are in fact very fundamental reasons why homosexuality is not to be encouraged... again, this is just my personal opinion, not about discrimination here.

I believe the key contention is in the misunderstanding of the law of choice. Proponents often make justification for their cause based on freedom of choice, and as long as the choice that one makes is not against the law, the choice made is personal and legitmate. So as long as 2 consenting adults of the same sex choose to marry each other, this choice harms no one and breaks no law and hence should be virtuous and not to be condemned. Under the influence of western ideology, such individuality ideals have over the centuries diffused into many nations through education, travel, trade, and media. In modern societies especially democratic ones, individuals regard freedom of choice as an entitlement and have upheld and defended it at all cost. If this is indeed the case, the argument for homosexuality threads dangerously on a single freedom of choice ideal, and the moment freedom of choice is exposed, homosexuality argument will then be invalid.

The westernized conception of 'choice' is narrow and individualized. Its construction begins with individual consciousness, going through a process of individual decision-making, and end with a decision. Anything that happens henceforth belongs to the 'consequence' construct. Which means 'choice' and 'consequence' are distinct and treated differently. In so doing, 'choice' alone is irresponsible because as long as a 'choice' is seen as legitimate, it need not consider 'consequence'. That is not to suggest that the emerging argument for homosexuality is irresponsible, in fact it has taken into consideration that the 'choice' for homosexuality harms no one and breaks no law, so responsibility is not oblivion. But the question is, are these the only considerations and responsibilities individuals carry?

The fact that we are born human (or living things for the sake of argument) carries with us the untold law of choice. This law of choice rejects the notion of individual freedom of choice, and it is this natural law of choice that provides the last line of defense against the ultimate extinction of humankind. This defense cannot hold by itself, it is through human that it becomes defensible. It is the duty of every human being to uphold this defensive wall against threat, just like what animals would when faced with extinction. Basing arguments on individual freedom of choice is therefore myopic and self-serving, because the law of choice tells us that whatever choice we make, we cannot shake away our duty to continue human existence.

While we sometimes make choices because we think we are psychologically different from others, and we see that difference as being unique and unchangeable, but no matter how different one is, the last line of defense reminds us that we are the same species afterall. Can proponents accept a world that is completely homosexual? If not, what is it that make it reason enough to have just 'some' homosexuality? Because it is just 'some' so therefore it is acceptable? Is this not a self-centered stance? In fact I would ask the same series of questions to people whom are against marriage and procreation. Can you accept a world that bears no babies? If not, what is it that make it reason enough for you to not procreate? Just because babies guarantee you sleepless nights? Self-centered stance again? Ok ok so the noble argument is that we don't want to bring life to this world only to end them up in broken families and suffer in society, but is it not our own doing that broken families and societal problems exist in the first place? So we break families and stirr up the society at will, then try to be noble in not wanting others to suffer? Any lamer excuse than that?

Supposing it is completely acceptable for a world devoid of new offsprings from this point on, where do you think those that pass will reincarnate? Become animals, insects, or just wander our neighbourhood as spirits? So some suggest that psychological makeup is to be blamed for homosexual tendencies and is unchangeable, are we then suggesting that a person with a psychological tendency to kill can kill at will or be permanently locked up? If it is due to genetic makeup, I am curious to know how homosexual genes got passed on through homosexuals in the first place!

I am sorry if my writing is offensive to some, it is not my intent to discriminate. But non-discrimation does not mean I am oblivious to the natural law of choice.

When its never too old to learn...

For some reasons I feel like boasting a little about myself today, so yawners may be excused before your goose pimples get the better of you, don't say I didn't warn you...

This is something least known about me, I am learning the piano! Too old? I've heard that from numerous people... that its best to start as a kid... that fingers get too stiff when older... that music sense can only be developed from young etc etc. I've loved piano music for years, but all these while I am only good at listening while my fingers itch away. Often I dreamt of being able to play it with style one day... and hopefully melt a few girls heart in the process... haha!

It all began when my little princess of 5 started learning the piano last year, so at that time I picked up her book and correct her mistakes as though I know what those "bean sprouts" mean. I told myself its never too old to learn anything, so I took off from there all by myself. Starting with the 2-black-key drills and 1-handed "Mary had a little lamb", then went on to more complicated pop song pieces downloaded from internet. I was partly inspired by the fact that it feels too painful sitting at home staring at the piano but not being able to play it except my girl... like trying to derive maximum ROI! Also, I thought it might be a good idea to get ready a retirement hobby! The starting part was agonizing, I really pity my neighbours on having to put up with all the unpleasant din created by me then. But I think I've made good progress, at least I can play a few pieces more fluently now, some I do not even have to see the scores to play... yes!

My achievements to date:
"Canon in C" - my very first proper piece
"I believe" - my first chinese pop
"你有心" (by Jade Kwan) - I just love this canto
"约定" (周惠 version) - this is toughest, I don't even know what key this is but there are 4 sharps that got my fingers entangled C# D# F# G#, but I simply love this song
"月亮代表我的心" - in case I want to perform for my mother :)

At times I can't stop praising myself for having done all this from ground zero in less than 12 months... haha... self-amusement? not really... thick-skin? certainly! But on a serious note, the feat does make me realise that nothing is too old to learn. I hear this all the time, even LKY said that about his learning Chinese. But I did not really feel it until I do my piano stuff. What's my approach? It's the power of visualization.

Each time I sit in front of my piano, I visualize that one day I will perform in a concert... (maybe with some pretty ladies singing along too!) This gives me enough inspiration and energy in working my once uncoordinated and lethargic fingers through the keyboard. Its like psyching myself up to learn with the intent of performing one day, it works! Now my fingers have memory, they can remember what keys to press without me having to be conscious about it. In fact the moment I try to be conscious, they go haywire! I think my retirement hobby is quite in place now, really very happy about it. Forget about all the music theory and stuff, I just want to be able to play songs in a way that sounds like songs and not din, and hopefully my neighbours enjoy being my neighbour and shout encore!

My next piece will be "听海" by 张惠妹.

When money is all that matters...

As I read a little more indepth about "Tripple Bottom Line" (TBL), the arguments seem very compelling indeed for organizations to focus not just on economic, but also social and ecological bottom lines. Here in lies the caveat, does social and ecology matters in reality?

It is not uncommon to hear CEOs professing that "people are their greatest asset" and that their organizations operate in a manner that is environmentally friendly. Inspiring words and noble indeed. But the next moment they talk of profitability as key imperatives, and all other things gets subordinated. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but I am curious about how and why organizations or human in general (including me of course) easily and automatically succumb to economic lure more than anything else? Blame it on history? Whoever invented "trade" has perhaps designed "greed" unknowingly.

In recent times, the NKF saga has caused us to fundamentally challenge the existence of true altruism. What is most disturbing to me wasn't limited to the context of NKF, but rather it is the growth of a cynical perspective on what I would call economic altruism. Which means altruism for the sake of money.

I'm a buddhist, and for a long time have taken for granted the noble causes of renounced buddhist disciples (i.e. monks and nuns). Everybody needs to eat and sleep, I can fully understand this. But ever since the NKF incident, I cannot understand why a monk need more than 10K a month for living in renunciation while many others get by comfortably with 1K or less? Is renunciation becoming a career aspiration like pastors in churches? I hold the highest regard for all religious and spiritual teachings, but this money issue is one that I cannot comtemplate and find it hard to reconcile. If one uses the name of religion for personal benefit and is taken as acceptable, then this world needs some serious soul searching. No benefitting in the name of religion, please!

Despite being one of the smallest country in the world, some believe that our leaders need to be highest paid. The arguments in favour of this proposition are certainly compelling, but when one is bent on doing something there will always be more reasons in favour than against. The underlying motivation for political office is money? Yes?

Bill Gates has certainly made the world fall on his feet with his recent philantrophic moves, but I wonder why there is a need for such elaborate media coverage if the underlying motivation is truly charitable. Don't get me wrong, his generosity has certainly benefitted many around the world and should be applauded. To the extent that anyone who knows Bill knows his charitable cause. For fame? And fame for?

Even the most fundamental and primitive of human activity gets entangled with the dollar like never before. Baby bonus... sounds familiar? My mum used to lament that she got "summon" by KK hospital when I was born (3rd child), but now we can make a living out of procreation through baby bonus schemes. Isn't having children innate in human (or living things)? Do we really need money as motivators? Won't we find our kids a drag once we used up the bonus? Come on!

The more I think of it, the more I feel like I am becoming a capitalist critique and socialist proponent. Quite scary... what's that theory by Karl Marx?

When I'm back for good...

It's been a good 9 months since I last posted, and guess what, some people are asking if I still blog at all. Not bad, at least I know some people are reading it!

Well being out of the blogging scene does not mean I've been doing nothing, in fact so many things have happened that I don't know where to start. Let's talk about my Masters programme since this is the only formal educational program that is 100% self funded.

I am left with 2 more units to go, namely Resource Management and Professional Project; 4 down 2 more to go. Both will take me right up till end of Sept this year. Frankly I am pleased with my results so far, though I am not sure if there is anything to do with intellectual ability or pure luck; I think the former makes more sense. For the first 3 units, I'm on a a pretty good run not relative to anyone, but relative to my own academic performance. Not bad for a person who was once an academic failure in my earlier school days.

In my primary school days, I was doing alright. But in secondary, I went down hill. Red colours starts to creep into my report book, perhaps in that growing up days other things seem more fun than books, being in normal stream is enough to put books in 2nd place. I dropped subjects just to finish my 'O' with 5. Among my group of friends, my 19 points for 'O' was one of the highest! In today's context, 19 points is a hopeless case already. I went to Ngee Ann Poly with a vengence, I can still remember how inadequate I felt when I was one of the very few among 100s in the lecture theatre whose hand stayed up when the maths lecturer asked: "Who did not do A math in 'O'?" It was a spite to my ego which later on spurred me to be obsessed with the alien word called 'distinction'. I finished my diploma with merit. My bachelor's program was a part time one. Similarly I did my best with some good results.

This master's program wasn't an easy run though, but I'm glad I was able to share some tips and approaches for the benefit of others. At least Vic found my tips useful and according to him over lunch, has improved his results in his assignments. Pat on your back, Vic. Somehow I enjoy sharing of knowledge, as long as it matters and as long as someone benefits from it. I'm not bugged by 'kung fu master syndrome', I can share everything if it makes sense, though I observe that there seems to be skeptics to this proposition. Its ok, life goes on... for one thing I learn through my 37 years in life, is that 'you scratch my back and I scratch yours'. Besides the stuff about this master's program, the network and knowing people is as valuable as the certificate itself... social capital? Indeed, no man is an island.

The key focus on the current unit is about sustainability, I think it makes excellent sense in every situation and context. At a personal level, we should be seeing our own success from a sustainability standpoint. Rich one day and bankrupt the next, morality one day and gone the next, distinction one day and fail the next. So really successful people are those whom are able to sustain their achievements over a reasonable period of time. Organizations alike needs a sustainability imperative. The overwhelming focus on short term results will come back to haunt in uglier ways. But lack of short term result is going to drive investors away. So what should organizations do? Start with the leader!

The power of the leader is very often underestimated. In many situations, a casual word from the leader is taken as a policy as the message trickles down the ranks. Particularly in hierarchical organizations, each layer of the hierarchy adds a degree of urgency and significance to the message. While this could be intentional and deliberate on the part of the leader, consider the following metaphor... Supposing the leader is the chef who whips up a bowl of noodles, by the time it reaches the diner it would have become inedible if each waiter sprinkle salt and pepper on it at their disposal. In reality, this metaphor is exemplary of most organizations, public or private alike. When the CEO wants a 10% increase in overall market share, every GM down the ranks add a 10% buffer just in case if we don't hit the stars we land on the roof. The entire culture of the organization is then shaped in a way that is invisible to the CEO. All the CEO wants is 10% increase, but people on the ground are suffering with impossible targets. Minister Mah recently mentioned the use of a 6/7 million population as a norm for planning public infrastructures, the citizens took it as a drive towards indiscriminate population increase. Did we clean our ears or was it selective listening?

Some say the world is flat, but I think the world is stacked!