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.
Monday, May 07, 2007
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?
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!
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!
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
When the next deadline is Sept 23...
Now that Aug 22 is over, done with assignment 1, assignment 2 deadline is exactly 1 month from today... This assignment asks that we compare "leadership" before and after we have gone through this unit... in 4000 words! Some may think this is challenging, but technically this is chicken feet! With lots to spare too! Let's take the longer version "leadership", we scramble it and compute its permutation (or "roll" for 4D pundits). So the number of ways in which "leadership" can be re-arranged is:
l e a d e r s h i p, l e a d e r s h p i, l e a d e r s i h p, ..., p i h s r e d a e l = n! = 3628800
See, since I only need 4000, I can lease out the remaining 3624800! Ok ok, I know I'm talking nonsence... but this is what "leadership" has done to me!
On a serious note, as I talked about "erosion of leadership" in my previous post, I shall not repeat those. Before I did this unit, leadership" was largely taken for granted based on its generally accepted meaning. Leadership style, leader behaviour etc were like textbook answers. As long as we learn and practise those styles and behaviour, we will be closer to exhibiting good leadership. Now that I am in the middle of this unit, it became apparent that our understanding of leadership may have been overly one-sided. In other words, the focus and practise of leadership has been entirely leader-centric. Indeed, a significant proportion of leadership research are leader-centric.
A number of scholars however, argued that by being leader-centric, we may have unknowingly omitted a most important paradigm to better our understanding of leadership; the views of followers. I think there is much to be discovered if we shift our paradigm to look at leaders from the vantage point of followers. Afterall, whether or not a leader is a good or a bad one depends on the perception of followers (or potential ones). Since leaders do not only attract followers, they also attract enemies too. So no matter how agile a leader is in exhibiting the best style and behaviour to best suit a given situation, not everyone perceive them the same way; some love 'em, some hate 'em.
For now, this perhaps will be my entree into assignment 2... definitely not "pihsredael".
l e a d e r s h i p, l e a d e r s h p i, l e a d e r s i h p, ..., p i h s r e d a e l = n! = 3628800
See, since I only need 4000, I can lease out the remaining 3624800! Ok ok, I know I'm talking nonsence... but this is what "leadership" has done to me!
On a serious note, as I talked about "erosion of leadership" in my previous post, I shall not repeat those. Before I did this unit, leadership" was largely taken for granted based on its generally accepted meaning. Leadership style, leader behaviour etc were like textbook answers. As long as we learn and practise those styles and behaviour, we will be closer to exhibiting good leadership. Now that I am in the middle of this unit, it became apparent that our understanding of leadership may have been overly one-sided. In other words, the focus and practise of leadership has been entirely leader-centric. Indeed, a significant proportion of leadership research are leader-centric.
A number of scholars however, argued that by being leader-centric, we may have unknowingly omitted a most important paradigm to better our understanding of leadership; the views of followers. I think there is much to be discovered if we shift our paradigm to look at leaders from the vantage point of followers. Afterall, whether or not a leader is a good or a bad one depends on the perception of followers (or potential ones). Since leaders do not only attract followers, they also attract enemies too. So no matter how agile a leader is in exhibiting the best style and behaviour to best suit a given situation, not everyone perceive them the same way; some love 'em, some hate 'em.
For now, this perhaps will be my entree into assignment 2... definitely not "pihsredael".
Sunday, August 20, 2006
When the "erosion of leadership" has happened...
It's 2 more days to my assignment due date. Pressure? Yes... Panick? Yes... Disillusioned? Certainly!!! Disillusioned not because I did scrabby work, but as a result of having done in depth review of some leadership literature. There are 3 reasons for my disillusionment, let me explain...
Firstly, whether I study leadership or not does not make any significant difference to the way I see things. The incredible amount of time spent reviewing those literature, coupled with a lot of self-doubt, did little more than what we already know without studying it. Indeed there were valuable learning in the form of new nomenclature and vocabulary, but one who doesn't study it will likely have a more positive attitude toward leadership than one who did.
Secondly, most of these literature used unbelievable amounts of outer-planet jargons to convey a simple idea. It is like reading Chinese written in ancient prose in the 21st century, for example: "知知为知知， 不知为不知， 是智也." The use of such prose in leadership literature appears to be an attempt to obscure the shallowness of an argument but instead seek to elevate it to a degree that fits the communicative norms of PhDs and Professors. "... naturalistic coherentism, rather than a priori, as was the case in hypothetico-deductivism..." (Lakomski, 1999) I almost swallowed my tongue reading this! For novice readers, I warn you to stay away before you begin to doubt your own language ability!
Thirdly, and most importantly, the promiscuous use of "leadership" and "leader" in practice today appears to be manifested from the work of leadership scholars through years of dubious definitions and assumptions. Its like casually calling Zinedine Zidane a "great" footballer just because he controls the ball better than anyone else on earth. If a CEO reward you when you perform, and punish you when you fail, how different is he to a manager? Yet everyone unanimously label him a "leader" that has "leadership" even if he kills to bring in revenue. This is what I call the "erosion of leadership"; the spirit of leadership has eroded since time immemorial.
After all the reading, I cannot figure out how "leadership" and "management" differ, neither can I distinguish a "leadership" theory from a "management" one. No wonder "leadership" has been casually bestowed upon anyone with authority over a group of people, this is certainly not what Confucius (551 to 479BC) meant when "君子" is a person with "an emergent quality" who "radiates and makes others want to follow, based on the respect and trust [he] generates." (Fernandez, 2004)
I don't think I am qualified to say this, but I still have to say it... leadership research needs an overhaul!
Firstly, whether I study leadership or not does not make any significant difference to the way I see things. The incredible amount of time spent reviewing those literature, coupled with a lot of self-doubt, did little more than what we already know without studying it. Indeed there were valuable learning in the form of new nomenclature and vocabulary, but one who doesn't study it will likely have a more positive attitude toward leadership than one who did.
Secondly, most of these literature used unbelievable amounts of outer-planet jargons to convey a simple idea. It is like reading Chinese written in ancient prose in the 21st century, for example: "知知为知知， 不知为不知， 是智也." The use of such prose in leadership literature appears to be an attempt to obscure the shallowness of an argument but instead seek to elevate it to a degree that fits the communicative norms of PhDs and Professors. "... naturalistic coherentism, rather than a priori, as was the case in hypothetico-deductivism..." (Lakomski, 1999) I almost swallowed my tongue reading this! For novice readers, I warn you to stay away before you begin to doubt your own language ability!
Thirdly, and most importantly, the promiscuous use of "leadership" and "leader" in practice today appears to be manifested from the work of leadership scholars through years of dubious definitions and assumptions. Its like casually calling Zinedine Zidane a "great" footballer just because he controls the ball better than anyone else on earth. If a CEO reward you when you perform, and punish you when you fail, how different is he to a manager? Yet everyone unanimously label him a "leader" that has "leadership" even if he kills to bring in revenue. This is what I call the "erosion of leadership"; the spirit of leadership has eroded since time immemorial.
After all the reading, I cannot figure out how "leadership" and "management" differ, neither can I distinguish a "leadership" theory from a "management" one. No wonder "leadership" has been casually bestowed upon anyone with authority over a group of people, this is certainly not what Confucius (551 to 479BC) meant when "君子" is a person with "an emergent quality" who "radiates and makes others want to follow, based on the respect and trust [he] generates." (Fernandez, 2004)
I don't think I am qualified to say this, but I still have to say it... leadership research needs an overhaul!
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
When we find it easier to beat ourselves up...
In a local newspaper today, I read with disbelieve the way we scrutinize ourselves with things that are as trivial as pronunciation. At a time where the other parts of the world is plugged by war, poverty, natural disasters and terrorism, we sit in the comfort of our home offering nothing but splitting our own hair.
How wrong can Singaporeans pronounce the word "Singapore"? Whether we choose to pronounce it as "Sing-Ga-Por" or "Sing-Nga-Por" with varying degree of stress on each syllable do not make us any more or less Singaporean. Similarly, being able to pronounce "Carrefour" in perfect French intonation does not make one look more French than another. If the mere pronunciation of "Deepavali" can make one enjoy the festival any more or less, Singapore is heading right down memories' lane in no time. The mere fact that a non-Chinese can vividly say "Gong Xi Fa Cai" is reason enough for a standing ovation, but some choose to pay no compliment even with perfect Confucius-style phonetics.
While we have been relatively free from worldly sufferings, we either contribute or reflect on those unfortunate events experienced by others and learn from it. If need be, we debate about things that matter, for those that matter. Engaging in hair-splitting commentaries do no one any good, but will instead portray this nation as ignorant and childish.
What is seriously lacking in this country is a culture of positiveness and encouragement. This reminds me of a local movie by Jack Neo "I not stupid too" that I again watched on the plane on my way back from Hanoi a few days ago. Amidst the tears and laughter, the key learning point of this movie is for us to look at one's virtue rather than be clouded by one's failure. How often do we pretentiously preface our comments with an upbeat only to chew it up with a "but"?
You look good in this dress, but... (only if you are 1 size smaller!)
You did well in your job, but... (you are still lousy in sucking up to me!)
This dish tastes good, but... (only because I am having a flu!)
All these sounds familiar? Some say keep your "buts" (butts) out of my face! So, maybe we should really keep some of our opinions to ourselves, because our opinions usually does nothing more than killing someone else's morale however well intended it may be.
How wrong can Singaporeans pronounce the word "Singapore"? Whether we choose to pronounce it as "Sing-Ga-Por" or "Sing-Nga-Por" with varying degree of stress on each syllable do not make us any more or less Singaporean. Similarly, being able to pronounce "Carrefour" in perfect French intonation does not make one look more French than another. If the mere pronunciation of "Deepavali" can make one enjoy the festival any more or less, Singapore is heading right down memories' lane in no time. The mere fact that a non-Chinese can vividly say "Gong Xi Fa Cai" is reason enough for a standing ovation, but some choose to pay no compliment even with perfect Confucius-style phonetics.
While we have been relatively free from worldly sufferings, we either contribute or reflect on those unfortunate events experienced by others and learn from it. If need be, we debate about things that matter, for those that matter. Engaging in hair-splitting commentaries do no one any good, but will instead portray this nation as ignorant and childish.
What is seriously lacking in this country is a culture of positiveness and encouragement. This reminds me of a local movie by Jack Neo "I not stupid too" that I again watched on the plane on my way back from Hanoi a few days ago. Amidst the tears and laughter, the key learning point of this movie is for us to look at one's virtue rather than be clouded by one's failure. How often do we pretentiously preface our comments with an upbeat only to chew it up with a "but"?
You look good in this dress, but... (only if you are 1 size smaller!)
You did well in your job, but... (you are still lousy in sucking up to me!)
This dish tastes good, but... (only because I am having a flu!)
All these sounds familiar? Some say keep your "buts" (butts) out of my face! So, maybe we should really keep some of our opinions to ourselves, because our opinions usually does nothing more than killing someone else's morale however well intended it may be.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
When management and leadership are the same...
Over the last few decades, the scholarly world has spent great amount of time debating what leadership is, on how it should be defined, on what it entails, and on arguments that leadership and management is not the same thing (eg. Barker, Meindl, Alvesson... just to name a few). This is where I find it hard to understand, because the real world out there spends more time doing real work than engaging in such hair-splitting commentaries.
Management or leadership, more often than not is a function of the same person. In other words no manager can get away from the expectation of being a leader, similarly no leader can be expected not to manage some things. Perhaps only a handful out of billions of people are blessed with the luxury of having only to lead and not manage, no action but talk only. But the larger world out there sees management and leadership synonymously.
Some says: "Managers do the things right, leaders do the right things." But is it really the case? Are they mutually exclusive? In addition, this saying is fundamentally flawed because it seems to recognize only two kinds of people in this world, managers and leaders. Since many in this world either do things the right way, or do the right kind of things, does it then mean everyone is either a manager or a leader? If every human can simply be classified as either a manager or a leader, then we risk trivializing management and leadership studies, why then do scholars spend so much time arguing over their differences?
Supposing scholars can agree to a distinct difference between the two, developed some intellectually intriguing model of management and leadership, we also should create a new kind of drug such that when consumed, would allow one to switch personality and mental state at will in order to effectively get into one's management or leadership role at any given point of time. If personality traits are so deeply embedded in one's actions and behaviour, how does one act and behave differently when the situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act? Perhaps even prior to this, does a person consciously figure out if a situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act in the first place? More often than not, such responses are highly instinctive and completely subconscious. Managerial and leadership skills are tightly fused, separating them is as hard as ridding seeds from apples without cutting, and utilization of these skills are often as a whole rather than as parts; no one buys un-cut apples without seeds, do you? Some may argue that before eating it, we can cut and remove the seeds, analogous to removing managerial skills from a person. But until such time we find a suitable psychological knife to cut up a person's mental state, managerial and leadership skills remain fused as one.
So, where do we go from here? Management and leadership studies should be as one. Stop seeing them as different, study them together. Look at how each can complement the other to be effective, and vice versa. This I call it the Managerial-leader, or Leadership-manager.
Management or leadership, more often than not is a function of the same person. In other words no manager can get away from the expectation of being a leader, similarly no leader can be expected not to manage some things. Perhaps only a handful out of billions of people are blessed with the luxury of having only to lead and not manage, no action but talk only. But the larger world out there sees management and leadership synonymously.
Some says: "Managers do the things right, leaders do the right things." But is it really the case? Are they mutually exclusive? In addition, this saying is fundamentally flawed because it seems to recognize only two kinds of people in this world, managers and leaders. Since many in this world either do things the right way, or do the right kind of things, does it then mean everyone is either a manager or a leader? If every human can simply be classified as either a manager or a leader, then we risk trivializing management and leadership studies, why then do scholars spend so much time arguing over their differences?
Supposing scholars can agree to a distinct difference between the two, developed some intellectually intriguing model of management and leadership, we also should create a new kind of drug such that when consumed, would allow one to switch personality and mental state at will in order to effectively get into one's management or leadership role at any given point of time. If personality traits are so deeply embedded in one's actions and behaviour, how does one act and behave differently when the situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act? Perhaps even prior to this, does a person consciously figure out if a situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act in the first place? More often than not, such responses are highly instinctive and completely subconscious. Managerial and leadership skills are tightly fused, separating them is as hard as ridding seeds from apples without cutting, and utilization of these skills are often as a whole rather than as parts; no one buys un-cut apples without seeds, do you? Some may argue that before eating it, we can cut and remove the seeds, analogous to removing managerial skills from a person. But until such time we find a suitable psychological knife to cut up a person's mental state, managerial and leadership skills remain fused as one.
So, where do we go from here? Management and leadership studies should be as one. Stop seeing them as different, study them together. Look at how each can complement the other to be effective, and vice versa. This I call it the Managerial-leader, or Leadership-manager.
Monday, July 31, 2006
When going back to school feels great...
I just started my Masters program a couple of months ago, and since then I'm done with one unit, 5 more remaining to go. Ever since I signed up for this program, which lasts for two years, many people have asked me a pretty standard question: "What do you intend to achieve after this course?" And my answers were also pretty standard: "I don't know!"
The fact is... I really don't know! When I started researching for a post-graduate program some months ago, it did not come across my mind that I have to have intention of achieving something before I venture on a program. Perhaps my quest was simply a matter of adding credibility in whatever I choose to do. Perhaps part of the reason is really a hunger for studenthood.
I wasn't the kind that do well in studies in my earlier years... flung a lot of subjects and dropped to the bare minimum of five subjects for 'N', then later 'O' levels... went to NP to do engineering, then started my career. While working, I somehow felt inadequate whenever people ask me which University I was from... my answer is none! So later on I did part time bachelor's program with SIM/UOL, and slugged it through as if went to hell and back. I even had to put my marriage plan on hold... it was tough but I enjoyed it.
Now that I'm into post-graduate stuff, things are rather different... I'm in mid-30s, with kids, rusty brain cells, but more experienced with life and still mentally enthusiastic about studenthood. I'm working on a leadership module now, frankly it wasn't as interesting as I thought it to be. Maybe the lecturers from Monash didn't quite ignite my spark, or maybe I just wasn't concentrating in the seminar. What was interesting though was the interaction with fellow coursemates during seminar sessions, all of them come from different walks of life... from teachers to military officers, principals to retirees, corporate trainers to directors... and of course some as old as 50s, to as young as 20s! Probably in his 50s, this retired army officer can be quite funny, can tap on his wealth of wisdom. In her 20s, one of this lady teacher that I know is at best 20+ I think, but she's a great thinker, quite cute when articulating her thoughts, but can definitely think well with good intellectual substance.
Now its crunch time, have to write 4000 words in 22 days as assignment. With the next 2 weeks travelling, I'm left with a week for 4000 words... so its 570 words per day, 35 words per waking hour, less than a word per minute... seems easy doesn't it? And since I can type 40 words per minute, I should be able to finish my assignment in less than 2 hours? Fat hope! Its time to stop dreaming and get back to work!
The fact is... I really don't know! When I started researching for a post-graduate program some months ago, it did not come across my mind that I have to have intention of achieving something before I venture on a program. Perhaps my quest was simply a matter of adding credibility in whatever I choose to do. Perhaps part of the reason is really a hunger for studenthood.
I wasn't the kind that do well in studies in my earlier years... flung a lot of subjects and dropped to the bare minimum of five subjects for 'N', then later 'O' levels... went to NP to do engineering, then started my career. While working, I somehow felt inadequate whenever people ask me which University I was from... my answer is none! So later on I did part time bachelor's program with SIM/UOL, and slugged it through as if went to hell and back. I even had to put my marriage plan on hold... it was tough but I enjoyed it.
Now that I'm into post-graduate stuff, things are rather different... I'm in mid-30s, with kids, rusty brain cells, but more experienced with life and still mentally enthusiastic about studenthood. I'm working on a leadership module now, frankly it wasn't as interesting as I thought it to be. Maybe the lecturers from Monash didn't quite ignite my spark, or maybe I just wasn't concentrating in the seminar. What was interesting though was the interaction with fellow coursemates during seminar sessions, all of them come from different walks of life... from teachers to military officers, principals to retirees, corporate trainers to directors... and of course some as old as 50s, to as young as 20s! Probably in his 50s, this retired army officer can be quite funny, can tap on his wealth of wisdom. In her 20s, one of this lady teacher that I know is at best 20+ I think, but she's a great thinker, quite cute when articulating her thoughts, but can definitely think well with good intellectual substance.
Now its crunch time, have to write 4000 words in 22 days as assignment. With the next 2 weeks travelling, I'm left with a week for 4000 words... so its 570 words per day, 35 words per waking hour, less than a word per minute... seems easy doesn't it? And since I can type 40 words per minute, I should be able to finish my assignment in less than 2 hours? Fat hope! Its time to stop dreaming and get back to work!
Sunday, July 09, 2006
When you live your life for the sake of others...
We take for granted that we exist in a social-cultural system that is congested with heaps of social norms, perceptions and cultural expectations. The people around us builds a social climate over time that encapsulates behavioural expectations, norms, societal rules, interrelational conducts and social boundaries. They also convey their perceptions in a humanly manner, they either say it or they show it. Culturally, there are further expectations imposed as a result of the values and belief system embraced by the societal climate created.
From young, we were inculcated with Do's and Don't's. We were told to greet people when we meet them, but for what? We were told to aspire towards success in life, but for whom?. We were told to eat in a non-beast-like manner, but for who to see? We must dress well, we have to behave in a pleasant way, we should speak properly... As we grow older, we tell our children to do what we had went through above; to conduct, to behave, to act, to carry ourselves in a way that is in line with the accepted way of living in the society we live in.
While we are out, we easily spot those who are out of line in a queue. We can tell a beast from a gentleman in a restaurant. We can smell rat from rose on a person. We can do this because we have come to terms with what is and what is not conformance.
Supposing you are the only person in this world, will we still have a social ecosystem of this nature? You don't have to queue, you don't have to talk, you don't see any behavioural flaws, neither do you have to worry how others see you.
Think about it, how many people have you come across in your life that asked you to live life the way you want? To enjoy life the way you most enjoy it? To not be bothered by how others see you? To BE YOURSELF? Is it possible, at all? Yes, unless you are the only person in this world!
Like it or not, we live our life for the sake of others. While some enjoy it, some obviously don't. For the sake of others' acceptance, others' pleasure, others' perception, others' agreement, others' inclusion, we live our lives for. Question is, are you happy doing that? If not, maybe reincarnation into other beings would be the right solution for you.
From young, we were inculcated with Do's and Don't's. We were told to greet people when we meet them, but for what? We were told to aspire towards success in life, but for whom?. We were told to eat in a non-beast-like manner, but for who to see? We must dress well, we have to behave in a pleasant way, we should speak properly... As we grow older, we tell our children to do what we had went through above; to conduct, to behave, to act, to carry ourselves in a way that is in line with the accepted way of living in the society we live in.
While we are out, we easily spot those who are out of line in a queue. We can tell a beast from a gentleman in a restaurant. We can smell rat from rose on a person. We can do this because we have come to terms with what is and what is not conformance.
Supposing you are the only person in this world, will we still have a social ecosystem of this nature? You don't have to queue, you don't have to talk, you don't see any behavioural flaws, neither do you have to worry how others see you.
Think about it, how many people have you come across in your life that asked you to live life the way you want? To enjoy life the way you most enjoy it? To not be bothered by how others see you? To BE YOURSELF? Is it possible, at all? Yes, unless you are the only person in this world!
Like it or not, we live our life for the sake of others. While some enjoy it, some obviously don't. For the sake of others' acceptance, others' pleasure, others' perception, others' agreement, others' inclusion, we live our lives for. Question is, are you happy doing that? If not, maybe reincarnation into other beings would be the right solution for you.
When it is easier to beat around the bush...
Human are strange animals don't you think? As a kid, we tell or signal to mum and dad exactly what we want. When we are hungry, we either say so or cry for milk. When we need the toilet, we don't even feel shy telling the world about it. When we like someone, we hug and kiss. When we dislike someone, we just say I DON'T LIKE YOU!
As we grow older, we begin to worry how others might feel, or we just somehow figure out that it is better to Beat-Around-The-Bush (BATB) than to be upfront. In the process, we forgot that the more we BATB, the more it hurts. The more we hide our real feelings and intentions, the more we end up inviting the kind of behaviour from others which we wanted to stay away in the first place. In other words, while we thought we are taking care of other's feelings, we end up hurting them and ourselves even more in the long run. Why do we still do this? Egoism.
Arguably, human is the only animal species in existence that is egoistic. There is no relationship between gender and egoism, although it is often attributed to masculinity more than femininity. The real correlation is intelligence. The higher one's intelligence, the more egoistic one can potentially become. That explains why children aren't as egoistic (if any) as adults; that explains why the mentally challenged are oblivious to their surroundings.
When one is egoistic, one is more bothered about how others perceive them. So when a man propose to a woman, the woman do not feel comfortable to simply say no. Rather she attempt to provide a response that seek to reject the man's proposal, yet having the man perceive her to be noble. In other words, BATB. Although is it not a crime to do so, not every man read the message as it is originally intended to be. As a result, instead of reading it as a rejection and move on, more often than not he perceive hope and challenge and attempt to try harder the next time, or he perceive sarcasm and respond in ugly ways.
When your boss give you an assignment that will potentially make you lose sleep nights and days, yet the assignment is not part of your job scope, do you say YES, NO, or do you BATB? How many times have you actually seen your boss say NO to his boss, and his boss pat him on the back and say good job? How often do you see people who say NO get a promotion while those who say YES remain saying YES? So while you happily say YES to your boss for that extra assignment, you feel good being perceived as cooperative. After losing sleep for a few days, you realize that your boss has other assignments waiting for you to say YES to! So you learned not to say YES so readily, rather you created some stories to try to convince him that you shouldn't be the one to lose sleep. Unless you are a top negotiator working for NATO, your BATB effort will be seen through. So you learned neither to say YES nor BATB, instead you say NO to your boss. Unless you have a better job waiting for you in another company, your NO will only assure you that your name will be next in line in the next retrenchment exercise.
It is unfortunate that YES-men get there while NO-men stay where they are even though managers say they don't want YES-men more than they say their prayers. It is also unfortunate that lovers enjoy agreement more than disagreement, however hypocritical those agreements may be.
So human beings have inevitably used our intelligence to transform the world from innocence to hypocriticism, due to egoism. No wonder it is easier to BATB than to say NO.
As we grow older, we begin to worry how others might feel, or we just somehow figure out that it is better to Beat-Around-The-Bush (BATB) than to be upfront. In the process, we forgot that the more we BATB, the more it hurts. The more we hide our real feelings and intentions, the more we end up inviting the kind of behaviour from others which we wanted to stay away in the first place. In other words, while we thought we are taking care of other's feelings, we end up hurting them and ourselves even more in the long run. Why do we still do this? Egoism.
Arguably, human is the only animal species in existence that is egoistic. There is no relationship between gender and egoism, although it is often attributed to masculinity more than femininity. The real correlation is intelligence. The higher one's intelligence, the more egoistic one can potentially become. That explains why children aren't as egoistic (if any) as adults; that explains why the mentally challenged are oblivious to their surroundings.
When one is egoistic, one is more bothered about how others perceive them. So when a man propose to a woman, the woman do not feel comfortable to simply say no. Rather she attempt to provide a response that seek to reject the man's proposal, yet having the man perceive her to be noble. In other words, BATB. Although is it not a crime to do so, not every man read the message as it is originally intended to be. As a result, instead of reading it as a rejection and move on, more often than not he perceive hope and challenge and attempt to try harder the next time, or he perceive sarcasm and respond in ugly ways.
When your boss give you an assignment that will potentially make you lose sleep nights and days, yet the assignment is not part of your job scope, do you say YES, NO, or do you BATB? How many times have you actually seen your boss say NO to his boss, and his boss pat him on the back and say good job? How often do you see people who say NO get a promotion while those who say YES remain saying YES? So while you happily say YES to your boss for that extra assignment, you feel good being perceived as cooperative. After losing sleep for a few days, you realize that your boss has other assignments waiting for you to say YES to! So you learned not to say YES so readily, rather you created some stories to try to convince him that you shouldn't be the one to lose sleep. Unless you are a top negotiator working for NATO, your BATB effort will be seen through. So you learned neither to say YES nor BATB, instead you say NO to your boss. Unless you have a better job waiting for you in another company, your NO will only assure you that your name will be next in line in the next retrenchment exercise.
It is unfortunate that YES-men get there while NO-men stay where they are even though managers say they don't want YES-men more than they say their prayers. It is also unfortunate that lovers enjoy agreement more than disagreement, however hypocritical those agreements may be.
So human beings have inevitably used our intelligence to transform the world from innocence to hypocriticism, due to egoism. No wonder it is easier to BATB than to say NO.
Friday, July 07, 2006
When the truth is harder to swallow...
Are there situations where you feel that it is better to keep quiet than to say something knowing that you will receive unnecessary glares of skepticism?
How many times does your boss confessed that: "I don't want yes-man in my team", only to end up shooting you down because you provided alternative opinion on his idea?
You company management says "our business is growing double-digit!" when they communicate with share-holders, but says "we failed to make enough profit" when it is time for salary increment. Sounds familiar?
Have you not noticed that it feels great to hear a friend say to you that "you look good today" than to say "you look troubled"?
Do you find it easy telling your wife that the brownie you had yesterday at the bakery is much better than the one she made a moment ago?
So we live in a world that is constantly surrounded by hypocriticism. Where the truth is often not the truth, and where it is much easier to make up a truth than to convey the truth itself. So at the end of the day, what is the truth?
This is my first blog post on a subject that anyone can identify with. From the highest echelon to the man in the street, from continent to continent, from generations to generations. The intention is not to find a way to overhaul civilization, but to provide a forum for discussion on a subject that threads through our everyday life.
I invite readers to post your comments, share your experiences and argue against my hypothesis.
Like it or not, the truth is always harder to swallow... how then can we make it more palatable?
How many times does your boss confessed that: "I don't want yes-man in my team", only to end up shooting you down because you provided alternative opinion on his idea?
You company management says "our business is growing double-digit!" when they communicate with share-holders, but says "we failed to make enough profit" when it is time for salary increment. Sounds familiar?
Have you not noticed that it feels great to hear a friend say to you that "you look good today" than to say "you look troubled"?
Do you find it easy telling your wife that the brownie you had yesterday at the bakery is much better than the one she made a moment ago?
So we live in a world that is constantly surrounded by hypocriticism. Where the truth is often not the truth, and where it is much easier to make up a truth than to convey the truth itself. So at the end of the day, what is the truth?
This is my first blog post on a subject that anyone can identify with. From the highest echelon to the man in the street, from continent to continent, from generations to generations. The intention is not to find a way to overhaul civilization, but to provide a forum for discussion on a subject that threads through our everyday life.
I invite readers to post your comments, share your experiences and argue against my hypothesis.
Like it or not, the truth is always harder to swallow... how then can we make it more palatable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
