In 1956, P. Ramlee produced a black and white movie, Anakku Sazali that sent simple yet very very strong messages:
1. that today's leaders are the product of yesterday's leadership.
2. that so-called 'good leader' can only know he is great not while he is in service but only on the verge of his retirement especially so when he had developed others to graciously take over the job from him. This is to ensure continuity of management and leadership. Otherwise, he isn't great after all.
This movie had since been aired countless number of times on almost all Malaysian TV channels watched by Malaysians from all walks of life, young and old.
After 52 years since its production and after countless number of times aired on Malaysian TV channels, I cannot believe if P.Ramlee had failed to sent such messages across. Mind you he had been awarded a Tan Sriship for his invaluable contributions not only towards film industry but also towards societal values development.
But, Star Online reports here, here and here, proved me wrong. The messages had not gone across...for, Confucius said ...if they (leaders) listen, they will forget; if they see, they will remember; but if they do they will understand.
This episode from the movie explains why the so-called 'good leaders' failed to be great leaders. Simply, they did not build other leaders.
Why?...read my previous observations here.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
The Truth About Office Politics
I found this 'puisi' written by Dr. Asri, the Mufti of Perlis really worth sharing. It sent a very deep implicit meaning indeed. Click on the image to read.
Having gone through situations 'when the going gets tough only the tough gets going' for more than 25 plus years, I couldn't agree less with the mufti.
Let's ponder... if we have done what we have done solely for the sake of the people and the organisation? ... have we not saved others to save our own skin? ... have we not taken care of them to take care of us ... have we not positioned others to position ourselves ... have we not allowed to be led by them to this path, because we liked them? ... have we not erroneously raised and led others to this path because we want them to be subservient to us? ... have we not forgotten to fulfill the obligations for which we are created? ... have we not forgotten that as 'sheppard' we are answerable for what we did for our 'flock.'
More puisi by Dr. Asri, click here.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Recognition: What They Don't Teach in Management Schools
I was having my breakfast with my spouse in one of the mamak's restaurants in Shah Alam, the usual thing we do every morning on Saturdays and Sundays, when I saw this news. I grinned.
The next day, I saw what I have expected, here on the Sunday Star. And thereafter, over several days there were controversial views over the award, here and here.
I had in my training sessions stressed the importance of recognition and that leaders must find time to reward and recognise. I too have iterated how central it is to immediately if not spontaneously, reward and recognise good behaviours if we want these behaviours repeated or emulated by others. Good behaviours nurture excellent organisational culture.
Many of us acknowledged that while good behaviours must be rewarded, the rationale for the reward must be accepted by the society - a critical element in managing the 21st century society. I too learnt the same principle from one of the most successful 500 Fortune companies - GE - when a group of us attended the GE's change management programme way back in late 1990's. Similarly, I had shared in several sessions that technical competency alone would not be sufficient to drive the intended change unless such change effort is bought-in by the society.
But, these news have indeed throw different insights especially the rationale given by the Chief Minister of Malacca. New things have emerged from this incident, first - that there should be a 'good' basis for the reward, otherwise it would raise a lot of controversies instead; second - that there must be a very influential third party proponent and endorsement (in this case, in the form of Tun Daim's).
Despite all of the above, one thing that is apparent is that the final say rests with the power-that-be. Especially so, when the proponent and the endorsement came from a very very important and influential personality. No matter how difficult it is to be accepted by the society, other relevant criteria are deemed out-weighted. Whether or not it will drive the intended change, such objective becomes secondary.
These are lessons that they don't teach in management schools.
The next day, I saw what I have expected, here on the Sunday Star. And thereafter, over several days there were controversial views over the award, here and here.
I had in my training sessions stressed the importance of recognition and that leaders must find time to reward and recognise. I too have iterated how central it is to immediately if not spontaneously, reward and recognise good behaviours if we want these behaviours repeated or emulated by others. Good behaviours nurture excellent organisational culture.
Many of us acknowledged that while good behaviours must be rewarded, the rationale for the reward must be accepted by the society - a critical element in managing the 21st century society. I too learnt the same principle from one of the most successful 500 Fortune companies - GE - when a group of us attended the GE's change management programme way back in late 1990's. Similarly, I had shared in several sessions that technical competency alone would not be sufficient to drive the intended change unless such change effort is bought-in by the society.
But, these news have indeed throw different insights especially the rationale given by the Chief Minister of Malacca. New things have emerged from this incident, first - that there should be a 'good' basis for the reward, otherwise it would raise a lot of controversies instead; second - that there must be a very influential third party proponent and endorsement (in this case, in the form of Tun Daim's).
Despite all of the above, one thing that is apparent is that the final say rests with the power-that-be. Especially so, when the proponent and the endorsement came from a very very important and influential personality. No matter how difficult it is to be accepted by the society, other relevant criteria are deemed out-weighted. Whether or not it will drive the intended change, such objective becomes secondary.
These are lessons that they don't teach in management schools.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Leaders and the "Win-Win" Game
Thomas Kilman Conflict Resolution instrument here provides five approaches to conflict resolution depending on the degree of cooperativeness and assertiveness of the conflicting parties.
I viewed the efforts made by UMNO top leadership on the impending transition of power as a case of: "tarik rambut dalam tepung: tepung jangan berserak, rambut jangan terputus" . Probably this is the Malay equivalent of Thomas Kilman's collaborative approach. But see also how the Malay proverb had placed emphasis on the importance of relationship even in a conflict situation. This is the so-called "soft on the people but hard on the issue" technique.
Many in the party may have felt a bit relieved on learning that the incumbent is ready to shorten the power transition period.
Kudos for having learnt, understood and practiced Thomas Kilman's conflict resolution grid and also lived the said Malay proverb, to some extend. But it sounds more like a compromise (you lose some - I lose some) rather than a win-win resolve.
Malaysian Insider's report here, the Malaysiakini's report here and the Star Online report here, on the other hand reminded me of an episode in the late Tan Sri P. Ramlee's Nujum Pak Belalang wherein 'Nyawa' and 'Badan' were trying to find ways for a win-win resolve over the looted treasure. I smiled as I recalled the glimpses of "ini kepala bapak kau & ini kepala bapak aku" technique we resorted to every time my friends and I had quarrels. That was many years ago when we were naive little kampung kids.
While I was pondering over the subtle messages written in-between-the-lines in the above-mentioned reports, the Nujum Pak Belalang video clip, the Malay peribahasa and the reminiscence on the children's games we played, what came vividly into my mind were: whose priority shall leaders place first? Whose problems shall leaders resolve first, whose interest shall leaders take care first - self, followers or the organisation/the country?
If Abraham Lincoln's (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), Gettysburg address: "Government of the people by the people and for the people" could probably throw leaders in UMNO some light on the above issue, certainly this is another lesson learned by leaders/ managers in the business sector in deciding their priorities in a conflict situation.
I viewed the efforts made by UMNO top leadership on the impending transition of power as a case of: "tarik rambut dalam tepung: tepung jangan berserak, rambut jangan terputus" . Probably this is the Malay equivalent of Thomas Kilman's collaborative approach. But see also how the Malay proverb had placed emphasis on the importance of relationship even in a conflict situation. This is the so-called "soft on the people but hard on the issue" technique.
Many in the party may have felt a bit relieved on learning that the incumbent is ready to shorten the power transition period.
Kudos for having learnt, understood and practiced Thomas Kilman's conflict resolution grid and also lived the said Malay proverb, to some extend. But it sounds more like a compromise (you lose some - I lose some) rather than a win-win resolve.
Malaysian Insider's report here, the Malaysiakini's report here and the Star Online report here, on the other hand reminded me of an episode in the late Tan Sri P. Ramlee's Nujum Pak Belalang wherein 'Nyawa' and 'Badan' were trying to find ways for a win-win resolve over the looted treasure. I smiled as I recalled the glimpses of "ini kepala bapak kau & ini kepala bapak aku" technique we resorted to every time my friends and I had quarrels. That was many years ago when we were naive little kampung kids.
While I was pondering over the subtle messages written in-between-the-lines in the above-mentioned reports, the Nujum Pak Belalang video clip, the Malay peribahasa and the reminiscence on the children's games we played, what came vividly into my mind were: whose priority shall leaders place first? Whose problems shall leaders resolve first, whose interest shall leaders take care first - self, followers or the organisation/the country?
If Abraham Lincoln's (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), Gettysburg address: "Government of the people by the people and for the people" could probably throw leaders in UMNO some light on the above issue, certainly this is another lesson learned by leaders/ managers in the business sector in deciding their priorities in a conflict situation.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Difficult People and Self-Esteem
More often than not, leaders tend to question why do difficult co-workers behave 'difficult'.
In a cycle of conflict, one is perceived as trying to change the other. The harder the attempt, the harder the resistance a change agent will experience.
Many leaders believe that co-workers resist change because they are living in a comfort zone, because they do not see the real need for change, because of the sour relationships co-workers had with the change agent. Little did leaders realised that co-workrs resist change not because of change per se but because of the uncertainties brought along by the change. These uncertainties create fear. Co-workers resist change because they are fearful of losing their basic needs, losing their security needs, their social needs they are currently enjoying, and more importantly they fear of losing their self-esteem and self actualisation. In other words, difficult people, very often have a low self esteem.
When change is inevitable, as a result of forces from within and outside, those resisting change suffer the 'denial syndrome'. They will always point the fingers at others for causing the problems except themselves. The irony is, while one finger points at others, four are pointing at themselves.
The current political turbulence within the ruling coalition especially after the March 8 GE and the 26 August PP by-election manifests this denial syndrome. When the pressures from outside are mounting, only then will leaders restrategise. Whether they are restrategising counter attacks or reforms is something that many people are anxiously waiting to know. The uncertainties has since translated into unfavourable social, economic and financial implications.
Likewise, similar situations could also happened in corporate organisations. In the process, a lot of time, money and energy are wasted. Many people were demoralised, some burnt-out and others find alternative solutions.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Difficult People & The Cycle of Conflict
Recently, in spite of Ramadan, I have the opportunity of facilitating a 2-day session on management skills. The programme was attended by managers and senior managers from the manufacturing industry. Several topics encompassing the conceptual, technical and human skills were covered. Yet, most critiques from participants were on conflict, dealing with difficult people and managing change - issues relating to human skills.
One participants remarked that the most important asset of an organisation - 'the people - is the most difficult to manage'.
Sometimes we find ourselves losing our heads when dealing with difficult people. We wonder how a simple disagreement can turn into a conflict.
So, on one side we have the nice people like us (the participants and me) and the difficult people on the other side (like the difficult co-workers).
I started by requesting the participants for words used to describe difficult people. As expected, everyone started to throw in negatives. Asking them to think like nice people, I went on to request them for words that described their reactions towards the 'difficult people'. Then I had asked them to analyse both the lists. They laughed. I was relieved when I learned that the they were indeed laughing at themselves. Little did they realised that, before this, they were behaving exactly in the same manner as the 'difficult people' when dealing with them.
How can we resolve the conflict or handle difficult people when we are behaving like them? Two negatives do not make a positive. It's a stalemate.How is this explained?
I have asked them to work in pair. One, A and the other, B. A holds his/her fist tight and B using his/ her creativity will try to open the fist. The 'lesson of the fist' manifests that the harder the attempt to open the fist, the more it motivates the difficult person to resist even harder. This creates the cycle of conflict. The cycle of conflict works in a vicious cycle.
Issues implicating Ahmad Ismail from Bukit Bendera; Penang recently, the reactions and exchanges of words from political and ethnic leaders from within and outside the ruling coalition, on the issues; Ahmad's refusal to apologise and the tearing away of Penang BN Chairperson and Former Penang CM's photograph; are classic illustrations on the cycle of conflict.
One participants remarked that the most important asset of an organisation - 'the people - is the most difficult to manage'.
Sometimes we find ourselves losing our heads when dealing with difficult people. We wonder how a simple disagreement can turn into a conflict.
So, on one side we have the nice people like us (the participants and me) and the difficult people on the other side (like the difficult co-workers).
I started by requesting the participants for words used to describe difficult people. As expected, everyone started to throw in negatives. Asking them to think like nice people, I went on to request them for words that described their reactions towards the 'difficult people'. Then I had asked them to analyse both the lists. They laughed. I was relieved when I learned that the they were indeed laughing at themselves. Little did they realised that, before this, they were behaving exactly in the same manner as the 'difficult people' when dealing with them.
How can we resolve the conflict or handle difficult people when we are behaving like them? Two negatives do not make a positive. It's a stalemate.How is this explained?
I have asked them to work in pair. One, A and the other, B. A holds his/her fist tight and B using his/ her creativity will try to open the fist. The 'lesson of the fist' manifests that the harder the attempt to open the fist, the more it motivates the difficult person to resist even harder. This creates the cycle of conflict. The cycle of conflict works in a vicious cycle.
Issues implicating Ahmad Ismail from Bukit Bendera; Penang recently, the reactions and exchanges of words from political and ethnic leaders from within and outside the ruling coalition, on the issues; Ahmad's refusal to apologise and the tearing away of Penang BN Chairperson and Former Penang CM's photograph; are classic illustrations on the cycle of conflict.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Positioned Leader Versus True Leader
Just before the Permatang Pauh by-election on the 26 August 2008, Malaysians witnessed two main opposing coalitions resorted to slinging mud and throwing rocks at each other. Each side bragged on their chances of winning the by-election. They deemed to have worked for a common cause. That's quite understandable. The by-election result literally do not change the distribution of seats. The ruling coalition still controls the majority.
I expected some signs of the dusts resulting from mud-slinging and stone-throwing to start settling down.
While much have been said and written on this issue, this observation will not add to the already lengthy list of political analyses. I choose to differ by looking at the issue from the leadership perspetive.
Yes, the dust has settled down, but in Pakatan Rakyat. They are already focusing on the next course of actions. The opposite is true in the ruling coalition. The dust has not settled down since the first election tsunami. In fact the dust is thickening after 26 August as they found a new ground for mud-slinging and stone-throwing. Now, within the coalition. Whether the dust will settled down soon is left much to be desired.
The above scenario provides us the relationships between positioned leader and true leader. It suggests the relationships between acquiring a position and the ability to control. There appears to be no guarantee that one will be able to lead and control even if he is positioned. Popularity positioned a leader, but true leadership steers and controls the entire team and its performance. True leadership is about influencing people/ followers. It is built around trust bound by personal attributes, competency and connection. Absence of true leadership can be chaotic and the result, fatal.
The current scenario is indeed annoying for everyone is hopeful for the dusts to settle down. But it takes a real leader ( and his power of buying-in) to settle the dusts (read resolve the problems)and clear the clouds (read set the vision).
When the dusts has settled and the clouds cleared only then could we see people lining up behind the leader.He is the real leader. And, everyone of us is waiting eagerly to see who he is...
I expected some signs of the dusts resulting from mud-slinging and stone-throwing to start settling down.
While much have been said and written on this issue, this observation will not add to the already lengthy list of political analyses. I choose to differ by looking at the issue from the leadership perspetive.
Yes, the dust has settled down, but in Pakatan Rakyat. They are already focusing on the next course of actions. The opposite is true in the ruling coalition. The dust has not settled down since the first election tsunami. In fact the dust is thickening after 26 August as they found a new ground for mud-slinging and stone-throwing. Now, within the coalition. Whether the dust will settled down soon is left much to be desired.
The above scenario provides us the relationships between positioned leader and true leader. It suggests the relationships between acquiring a position and the ability to control. There appears to be no guarantee that one will be able to lead and control even if he is positioned. Popularity positioned a leader, but true leadership steers and controls the entire team and its performance. True leadership is about influencing people/ followers. It is built around trust bound by personal attributes, competency and connection. Absence of true leadership can be chaotic and the result, fatal.
The current scenario is indeed annoying for everyone is hopeful for the dusts to settle down. But it takes a real leader ( and his power of buying-in) to settle the dusts (read resolve the problems)and clear the clouds (read set the vision).
When the dusts has settled and the clouds cleared only then could we see people lining up behind the leader.He is the real leader. And, everyone of us is waiting eagerly to see who he is...
Friday, August 29, 2008
Be A 'Good' Finder
"When can you know that you are making a mistake in your job?", I asked.
"When my boss gets angry with me.", replied one of the participants in one of my training sessions on leadership.
"What happened when everything goes fine?", I asked curiously. "Ah, nothing happened. Our bosses left leave us alone. He doesn't bother us and we'll just do our jobs as usual. It's business as usual.", another participant responded.
"How do you get rewarded for your good effort?", I asked further.
"Well, we have to wait till the end of the year. See if we will be getting any raise in our increment and bonus." someone senior in age replied with cynicism. The rest nodded in agreement.
These are usual stereo-typed responses I got from participants. No, they are not participants from the same company attending scheduled in-house training sessions. It would not be so surprising if it is so. The questions I asked would have been discussed among them before they attend the programme. But these are responses gathered during my public programmes.
These responses inferred that bosses, regardless industry, have not effectively put their thinking caps in the right perspective in dealing with their knowledge-coworkers. In short, they have not changed.
What is apparent from these responses is that co-workers learned that bosses paid more attention when they made mistakes. Co-workers got immediate 'beatings' for mistakes done and delayed recognition and reward for good work. Co-workers witnessed 'beatings' came personally from their bosses and delayed recognition from the company. Never could they witnessed recognition coming personally from their bosses. Such behaviour nurtures the 'blame culture'.The result is low morale and demotivated workforce.
While bosses expect greater efficiency and higher productivity from their co-workers at the end of each day, little did they realise that their leadership behaviour is counter productive. Already, many bosses and co-workers find their work stressful and for some, they are burnt-outs.
It is therefore paramount for bosses to find time to recognise and reward their co-workerss. Be a 'good' finder. Pick on every 'good' things your co-workers did and recognise their 'good' effort. You will soon realise that your co-workers repeat their 'good' behaviour. This raises morale, motivation hence greater efficienty and higher productivity.
Bosses should have the attitude of a staunch soccer supporter who gave his big applause for every move perceived fit to score a goal and a proud coach who hug the striker for the goal scored. And,these are done almost spontaneously - and not wait till the end of the game.
Then, what do bosses do with those making mistakes? Send them to school. The world has changed. 'Beating' your co-workers do not solve the problem. It created more problems for your behaviour made them more demoralised, demotivated, less effective and result in poor productivity. Worst still they shun away from you. This is the power of the powerless.
Bosses therefore need to find time to coach and show their co-workers how to come out of their work-related problems. If you do this, you have just found and learn to leverage your new source of power - the referent power.
So, to be effective, be a 'good' finder.
"When my boss gets angry with me.", replied one of the participants in one of my training sessions on leadership.
"What happened when everything goes fine?", I asked curiously. "Ah, nothing happened. Our bosses left leave us alone. He doesn't bother us and we'll just do our jobs as usual. It's business as usual.", another participant responded.
"How do you get rewarded for your good effort?", I asked further.
"Well, we have to wait till the end of the year. See if we will be getting any raise in our increment and bonus." someone senior in age replied with cynicism. The rest nodded in agreement.
These are usual stereo-typed responses I got from participants. No, they are not participants from the same company attending scheduled in-house training sessions. It would not be so surprising if it is so. The questions I asked would have been discussed among them before they attend the programme. But these are responses gathered during my public programmes.
These responses inferred that bosses, regardless industry, have not effectively put their thinking caps in the right perspective in dealing with their knowledge-coworkers. In short, they have not changed.
What is apparent from these responses is that co-workers learned that bosses paid more attention when they made mistakes. Co-workers got immediate 'beatings' for mistakes done and delayed recognition and reward for good work. Co-workers witnessed 'beatings' came personally from their bosses and delayed recognition from the company. Never could they witnessed recognition coming personally from their bosses. Such behaviour nurtures the 'blame culture'.The result is low morale and demotivated workforce.
While bosses expect greater efficiency and higher productivity from their co-workers at the end of each day, little did they realise that their leadership behaviour is counter productive. Already, many bosses and co-workers find their work stressful and for some, they are burnt-outs.
It is therefore paramount for bosses to find time to recognise and reward their co-workerss. Be a 'good' finder. Pick on every 'good' things your co-workers did and recognise their 'good' effort. You will soon realise that your co-workers repeat their 'good' behaviour. This raises morale, motivation hence greater efficienty and higher productivity.
Bosses should have the attitude of a staunch soccer supporter who gave his big applause for every move perceived fit to score a goal and a proud coach who hug the striker for the goal scored. And,these are done almost spontaneously - and not wait till the end of the game.
Then, what do bosses do with those making mistakes? Send them to school. The world has changed. 'Beating' your co-workers do not solve the problem. It created more problems for your behaviour made them more demoralised, demotivated, less effective and result in poor productivity. Worst still they shun away from you. This is the power of the powerless.
Bosses therefore need to find time to coach and show their co-workers how to come out of their work-related problems. If you do this, you have just found and learn to leverage your new source of power - the referent power.
So, to be effective, be a 'good' finder.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Knowing Where You Are and Your Role Play
End of last week I was on a 2-day training assignment. The programme was aimed at developing participants' skill in using tools and tactics in order to improve their capability. I was least concern on the quality of the contents. Quality of contents is essentially influenced by individual intelligence, exposures, experiences, the amount of information an individual has and more importantly the person's level of motivation. It also requires effective nurturing and coaching at workplace by leaders in the organisation. Tools and tactics can only structure the thought process that will enhance the quality of the contents. Besides, it is beyond scope of my training .
At the end of the 2-day programme, I was pleased to see that everyone had demonstrated the expected level of competency in deploying the tools and tactics shared. Such competency was manifested by their group work and presentations. I am must say that everyone had taken home more than they had carried into the training room and much more than I had expected. The objectives of the programme were met.
The participants ranges from junior executives with as low as 3 months experience to general manager with more than 20 years of experience. Pitching, though challenging, was not a problem . Presentations on the first day were dry and dragged. I had noted that except one, the rest of the participants were not too willing to open up. This one person though analytical was exceptionally critical on group work. Later in the day I had understood the environment as there were instances when I too felt uneasy.
The second day was supposed to start at 8.30am. By 8.35am the training room was still half-full. Two out of four groups had only 2 participants each. Someone senior in position had insisted that I start the programme right away as it would be unfair for him who had come early. I saw he valued compliance more than commitment. True leaders value commitment more than compliance. The other group members were as important to me as the rest. I recalled J.C. Maxwell's: "Leaders need to give up (their pride) to go up". This is humility. I did not see such quality in this person. He is not even willing to give in for 5 extra minutes to others. I had but to assert that we need to give another 5 minutes grace. Less than 2 minutes later four more participants came in. One group was still short of 2 participants. We reorganised the groups. We had 3 instead of 4 groups like in the first day. The participants had indeed went through the team dynamics of forming, storming, norming and performing.
As the participants left the room and shake their hands (except the ladies whom I do not shake hand with) at the end of the 2 day session , I could feel their tight grip except one person. I had however left some souvenirs for them to share - 12 Angry Men and Difficult People.
There are several points to learn from this experience:
1. Regardless of our position and authority, in a training sesssion we attended, we are just another participant.
2. We need to lock in our position and authority before leaving our office. In Rome, do as the Romans do. A local parable suggested "masuk kandang kambing mengembek, masuk kandang lembu menguak."
3. We may manage and lead our organisation, but the course leader/ facilitator leads the training session we attended. This is the law of connection (Maxwell).
4. We should not only be willing to learn but also should be willing to be taught.
5. Regardless how authoritative can we be, our skills in leveraging the reward power motivates others. The use of positive words will make a positive difference.
6. Leaders need to be 'good-finder' instead of being overly critical on nitty-grity, for we will end up with no one contributing any ideas in the future.
7. Learn to recognise small improvements as these are building blocks for bigger successes.
8. To motivate others, is to make them feel good about themselves and others.
9. At times, we need to play dumb and ignorant to excite others to give more information and show their 'colour'
Take note that these lessons learned too demand analytical thinking capability. I have to keep reminding myself of these lessons when presenting a paper in an upcoming logistics forum this October 2008 in Penang.
At the end of the 2-day programme, I was pleased to see that everyone had demonstrated the expected level of competency in deploying the tools and tactics shared. Such competency was manifested by their group work and presentations. I am must say that everyone had taken home more than they had carried into the training room and much more than I had expected. The objectives of the programme were met.
The participants ranges from junior executives with as low as 3 months experience to general manager with more than 20 years of experience. Pitching, though challenging, was not a problem . Presentations on the first day were dry and dragged. I had noted that except one, the rest of the participants were not too willing to open up. This one person though analytical was exceptionally critical on group work. Later in the day I had understood the environment as there were instances when I too felt uneasy.
The second day was supposed to start at 8.30am. By 8.35am the training room was still half-full. Two out of four groups had only 2 participants each. Someone senior in position had insisted that I start the programme right away as it would be unfair for him who had come early. I saw he valued compliance more than commitment. True leaders value commitment more than compliance. The other group members were as important to me as the rest. I recalled J.C. Maxwell's: "Leaders need to give up (their pride) to go up". This is humility. I did not see such quality in this person. He is not even willing to give in for 5 extra minutes to others. I had but to assert that we need to give another 5 minutes grace. Less than 2 minutes later four more participants came in. One group was still short of 2 participants. We reorganised the groups. We had 3 instead of 4 groups like in the first day. The participants had indeed went through the team dynamics of forming, storming, norming and performing.
As the participants left the room and shake their hands (except the ladies whom I do not shake hand with) at the end of the 2 day session , I could feel their tight grip except one person. I had however left some souvenirs for them to share - 12 Angry Men and Difficult People.
There are several points to learn from this experience:
1. Regardless of our position and authority, in a training sesssion we attended, we are just another participant.
2. We need to lock in our position and authority before leaving our office. In Rome, do as the Romans do. A local parable suggested "masuk kandang kambing mengembek, masuk kandang lembu menguak."
3. We may manage and lead our organisation, but the course leader/ facilitator leads the training session we attended. This is the law of connection (Maxwell).
4. We should not only be willing to learn but also should be willing to be taught.
5. Regardless how authoritative can we be, our skills in leveraging the reward power motivates others. The use of positive words will make a positive difference.
6. Leaders need to be 'good-finder' instead of being overly critical on nitty-grity, for we will end up with no one contributing any ideas in the future.
7. Learn to recognise small improvements as these are building blocks for bigger successes.
8. To motivate others, is to make them feel good about themselves and others.
9. At times, we need to play dumb and ignorant to excite others to give more information and show their 'colour'
Take note that these lessons learned too demand analytical thinking capability. I have to keep reminding myself of these lessons when presenting a paper in an upcoming logistics forum this October 2008 in Penang.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Leadership: Perception and Reality
It is has been sometime since I last blogged in June 2008. The schedules I had kept me busy taking through young executives from the industry - both private and public sector - on management and leadership lessons learned. And citing live-examples from the dramatic Malaysian political scenario seemed to create a lot of excitement in our discussions.
I too have the opportunity of sharing "Hang Tuah" the first Malay coloured-movie with our participants. We saw similar characters in today's leadership and management. We saw and learned how history repeated itself in our modern day management and leadership.
Hang Tuah survived the thick and thin of his life, from being praised, admired, condemn and cursed by the people. Tun Ali, Patih Karma Wijaya were colourful characters we can learn from but Hang Jebat remained principle-centred. Each of these characters - good or evil - has their followers.
At the end of the movie, Hang Tuah asked "Am I right or Hang Jebat?"
Right or wrong is a question of perception. It is a question of which side you are on on. As leaders, the reality is whether the people trust you and more importantly whether they accept you - as a person (not your position) and the cause for which you are fighting - to lead them.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Go! When It Is Time To Leave
I attended several weddings last weekend. Obviously after a year of doing what I enjoyed most - setting up a small company and keeping busy with the schedules - this rare opportunity of meeting old friends certainly sparked a lot of issues.
Majority of us were retired and we were practically catching up with lost time and keeping ourselves recent.
While most of us came and gone with time, some of our friends were 'asked' to stay on to 'mentor' the next-in-line particularly those in the operations. They - the old red blood cells - aren't holding just operative or clerical positions but some of them are holding senior managerial positions. And, most have served the company no less than 25 years. Bravo for being so loyal!
But, we were wandering how could such situation happened in big organizations after these managers served the organizations for more than a quarter of a century. Within such span of time, the succession planning should have been well-placed. It could only occur when people put self interest before the organizations'. Such situations are transformed and are obviously counter productive to the organizations. These have become organizational culture.
Despite such policy at the operations or core business level, this so-called 'philosophy' don't seemed to be flowing in the veins of the top management. This is so when they believe in transfusions rather than having the same "old red blood cells.' We have heard and seen incumbents keeping their positions because the person(s) next in line is 'not ready for the job'. 'there are still a lot of unfinished job to be done' (wonder what is not finished?) etc. etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Again, the irony is that such words are only coming from the incumbents at the top. Don't they realized that it is leaders' duty to build other leaders? Or it is that the game must be played within the inner circle?
It also triggers me that they (those who have been 'asked' to stay on) may be called to 'manually take-off or land planes' as and when needed, for, in many instances incumbents were positioned and are running on 'auto-pilot'. Once they have finished their jobs - 6 months, 1 year so on so forth - the incumbent captains will again take-over and again put the plane on 'auto-pilot'.
In one other weekend, I had to climb up a ladder to get to the rooftop to follow a handyman whom I hired to mend roof-leakages. It had reminded me that it is much easier to get to the top than going down. All you need to do is to keep looking at the top and take a step at a time. Getting down is rather scary, if you are not used to it. You may actually need some one to comfort and assure you of your safety.
I tend to believe that those who find it difficult to go when their time has come are in fact suffering from 'vertigo'. And, those who dare to go when the time comes, are those who have practice of 'going up and down the ladder'. The least is being mentally prepared. And, that needs practice.
There could be several reasons to explain why people are experiencing the 'vertigo syndrome':
1. They always had their heads in the clouds, hence they can't see the way down
2. They only know how to 'auto-pilot'. They do not know how to take-off and land the plane themselves
3. They never had sufficient practice of going up and down the ladder. They tell others to 'turun padang' but they preferred to stay in their 'ivory tower'
4. They put self before the organization.
5. They were sent up using an elevator and hence do not know how to get down.
6. They suffer vertigo
So, they stayed on until some one take them down using an elevator.
It just doesn't make much sense when some one who claimed that he knows how to go up the ladder himself but do not know how to get down. It is further nonsense to note that someone after having served the organization for no less than 25 - 30 years, still do not know what to do after his retirement. Could we say that this is the price one has to pay for not finding oneself? A karma?
Let me suggest that the first thing that you need to do is: go! when the time comes! Let others take on their job from there. These people need to start the way you started your career, lest you forget! Can they take on from where you left? Ask yourself that question and of course don't forget ask yourself your self-worth?
Connect yourself with those out there, pay back what you owe to the society and you will find that you are worth more than just being subservient!
Remember, even dying needs practice too.
Majority of us were retired and we were practically catching up with lost time and keeping ourselves recent.
While most of us came and gone with time, some of our friends were 'asked' to stay on to 'mentor' the next-in-line particularly those in the operations. They - the old red blood cells - aren't holding just operative or clerical positions but some of them are holding senior managerial positions. And, most have served the company no less than 25 years. Bravo for being so loyal!
But, we were wandering how could such situation happened in big organizations after these managers served the organizations for more than a quarter of a century. Within such span of time, the succession planning should have been well-placed. It could only occur when people put self interest before the organizations'. Such situations are transformed and are obviously counter productive to the organizations. These have become organizational culture.
Despite such policy at the operations or core business level, this so-called 'philosophy' don't seemed to be flowing in the veins of the top management. This is so when they believe in transfusions rather than having the same "old red blood cells.' We have heard and seen incumbents keeping their positions because the person(s) next in line is 'not ready for the job'. 'there are still a lot of unfinished job to be done' (wonder what is not finished?) etc. etc. etc. and the list goes on and on. Again, the irony is that such words are only coming from the incumbents at the top. Don't they realized that it is leaders' duty to build other leaders? Or it is that the game must be played within the inner circle?
It also triggers me that they (those who have been 'asked' to stay on) may be called to 'manually take-off or land planes' as and when needed, for, in many instances incumbents were positioned and are running on 'auto-pilot'. Once they have finished their jobs - 6 months, 1 year so on so forth - the incumbent captains will again take-over and again put the plane on 'auto-pilot'.
In one other weekend, I had to climb up a ladder to get to the rooftop to follow a handyman whom I hired to mend roof-leakages. It had reminded me that it is much easier to get to the top than going down. All you need to do is to keep looking at the top and take a step at a time. Getting down is rather scary, if you are not used to it. You may actually need some one to comfort and assure you of your safety.
I tend to believe that those who find it difficult to go when their time has come are in fact suffering from 'vertigo'. And, those who dare to go when the time comes, are those who have practice of 'going up and down the ladder'. The least is being mentally prepared. And, that needs practice.
There could be several reasons to explain why people are experiencing the 'vertigo syndrome':
1. They always had their heads in the clouds, hence they can't see the way down
2. They only know how to 'auto-pilot'. They do not know how to take-off and land the plane themselves
3. They never had sufficient practice of going up and down the ladder. They tell others to 'turun padang' but they preferred to stay in their 'ivory tower'
4. They put self before the organization.
5. They were sent up using an elevator and hence do not know how to get down.
6. They suffer vertigo
So, they stayed on until some one take them down using an elevator.
It just doesn't make much sense when some one who claimed that he knows how to go up the ladder himself but do not know how to get down. It is further nonsense to note that someone after having served the organization for no less than 25 - 30 years, still do not know what to do after his retirement. Could we say that this is the price one has to pay for not finding oneself? A karma?
Let me suggest that the first thing that you need to do is: go! when the time comes! Let others take on their job from there. These people need to start the way you started your career, lest you forget! Can they take on from where you left? Ask yourself that question and of course don't forget ask yourself your self-worth?
Connect yourself with those out there, pay back what you owe to the society and you will find that you are worth more than just being subservient!
Remember, even dying needs practice too.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Inner Circle
When Jimmy Mc Ginty was appointed Football Coach for Washington D.C. (The Replacements), he set his terms. He wanted total control of the team, be able to recruit anybody that he wanted and to pick the players without any interference from the club owners. The owners of the club agreed.
Jimmy went through a list of players whom he had been keeping his eyes on for years. They were good. Not everyone was a professional, though. The players came from different backgrounds; SWAT team member, shop assistant, bar tender, reverend and Shane Falco, a retired former quarter master of Ohio State Football Team. Jimmy put these 'players' together. He was focusing on their strengths not their weaknesses. Jimmy made each one of them go through tough football training and team-building mill and processes - forming, storming, norming and performing - to form a winning team.
What Jimmy did was nothing unfamiliar. Being the leader of the team, Jimmy call the shot. Jimmy looked for the following 'players' (Maxwell):
a) those who raise up themselves
b) those who raise up morale of others
c) those who raise up the leaders
d) those who raise up others
e) those who raise up people who raise up other people.
In management and politics - BN, PR etc - such games are played by leaders. They have a list of 'who's who'. They have a complete record of people - the good, the bad and the ugly- whom they want to pick. They picked their men and and positioned them to deliver what are expected of them. These people had the leader's trust but it is the leader that call the final shot.
They are members of the Inner Circle. Why is this so? Every leader's potentials is determined by the people closest to them. When leaders have the right people - staff/ co-workers, their potentials ecxel. Mind you, there aren't lone-ranger leaders, for if you are, you aren't leaders.
Have you thought through about your inner circle?
Jimmy went through a list of players whom he had been keeping his eyes on for years. They were good. Not everyone was a professional, though. The players came from different backgrounds; SWAT team member, shop assistant, bar tender, reverend and Shane Falco, a retired former quarter master of Ohio State Football Team. Jimmy put these 'players' together. He was focusing on their strengths not their weaknesses. Jimmy made each one of them go through tough football training and team-building mill and processes - forming, storming, norming and performing - to form a winning team.
What Jimmy did was nothing unfamiliar. Being the leader of the team, Jimmy call the shot. Jimmy looked for the following 'players' (Maxwell):
a) those who raise up themselves
b) those who raise up morale of others
c) those who raise up the leaders
d) those who raise up others
e) those who raise up people who raise up other people.
In management and politics - BN, PR etc - such games are played by leaders. They have a list of 'who's who'. They have a complete record of people - the good, the bad and the ugly- whom they want to pick. They picked their men and and positioned them to deliver what are expected of them. These people had the leader's trust but it is the leader that call the final shot.
They are members of the Inner Circle. Why is this so? Every leader's potentials is determined by the people closest to them. When leaders have the right people - staff/ co-workers, their potentials ecxel. Mind you, there aren't lone-ranger leaders, for if you are, you aren't leaders.
Have you thought through about your inner circle?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Leaders: Are You In Position, In Control or Neither?
Have you ever experienced situations in meetings when you see the chairman is leading the meeting but someone else is leading the people?
In such a situation, the man running the meeting is not the real leader. The man running the meeting is in position but the man leading the people is in control. The man running the meeting holds the legitimate position but the man leading the people is the de facto leader.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law. Very often, the word de facto is used to express a person who does not hold a legitimate position but is very influential, controls the situation and leads the people.
A case in point is the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) governments in 5 states of Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. It unveiled the role of the former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the de facto leader or the real leader of the PR. See this clip on the announcement of the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat.
A real leader holds the power and not just the position, though it may not be legitimate.
Positional leader usually speaks first, influence other positional leaders but counts on the influence of the real leader to move and get things done. On the other hand, real leader speaks later, influences everyone and uses his own influence power to move and get things done the way he desires.
When the real leader speaks, people listen. The irony is people listen not necessarily because of the truth in the message being imparted, but because of their respect for the leader. And this is driven by the leader's character, relationships, knowledge, intuition, experience, sacrifice and ability.
Where are you? In control, in position or neither in control nor in position?
In such a situation, the man running the meeting is not the real leader. The man running the meeting is in position but the man leading the people is in control. The man running the meeting holds the legitimate position but the man leading the people is the de facto leader.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law. Very often, the word de facto is used to express a person who does not hold a legitimate position but is very influential, controls the situation and leads the people.
A case in point is the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) governments in 5 states of Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. It unveiled the role of the former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the de facto leader or the real leader of the PR. See this clip on the announcement of the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat.
A real leader holds the power and not just the position, though it may not be legitimate.
Positional leader usually speaks first, influence other positional leaders but counts on the influence of the real leader to move and get things done. On the other hand, real leader speaks later, influences everyone and uses his own influence power to move and get things done the way he desires.
When the real leader speaks, people listen. The irony is people listen not necessarily because of the truth in the message being imparted, but because of their respect for the leader. And this is driven by the leader's character, relationships, knowledge, intuition, experience, sacrifice and ability.
Where are you? In control, in position or neither in control nor in position?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Should Leaders Throw Rocks At Each Other?
Although the 12 Parliament Session has begun, some members of the ruling coalition has yet to stop bickering each other.
The latest was when the former Selangor MB, Khir Toyo told reporters that the Hindu Temple demolition, alleged to be one of the major factors for Selangor BN dismal performance in the last GE, was MIC President, Samy Velu's idea. Read full report here and here. Samy slammed and said 'It is Khir's fault'.
On seeing that this is not good for BN, PM Abdullah Badawi told both leaders to stop it.
And then another headline picked Khir Toyo as saying 'Blame the keris not the broom' for the poor performance.
I had quarrels with my brothers that compelled my parent to stop us from bickering each other. We were children then. Now that we have families of our own, we understood why our parent had to come in between us to resolve our differences. They had gone and we missed them a lot. As leaders, they had indeed taught us to place greater importance on building relationships rather than bickering on each other. Thereafter, we move on to do what we were supposed to do.
Sometime in November - December 2006, I held a series of 12 Management Training sessions for Mayban Fortis. Mayban Fortis, Takaful Malaysia and MNI then were going through a merger process. I had quoted and shared a case story of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition in these sessions.
The 1982 Canadian Everest team had the best climbers from all over the world. The leader knew that even though they had the best people in the entire world at what they did, the trip would not be a success. This was because everyone in the team wants to get to the top for themselves. They did it for the glory of their own country and not for the good of their team. Not only that they never got to the top, at one point these successful climbers were throwing rocks at each other. What was frustrating, was to see them throwing rocks at each other when they were supposed to be in a team. And, what seemed to be even more crazy was that they dare throw rocks at each other when they were just attached to each other by ropes.
The above local news headlines are no different from this case story. More often than not, while leaders claimed they deserved their positions we still see them throwing 'verbal rocks' at people who are supposed to be on their team. Why? Only they can tell the reasons for doing so. But....surely we can learn from the experiences of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition Team. And we too can list the leadership lessons learnt.
The latest was when the former Selangor MB, Khir Toyo told reporters that the Hindu Temple demolition, alleged to be one of the major factors for Selangor BN dismal performance in the last GE, was MIC President, Samy Velu's idea. Read full report here and here. Samy slammed and said 'It is Khir's fault'.
On seeing that this is not good for BN, PM Abdullah Badawi told both leaders to stop it.
And then another headline picked Khir Toyo as saying 'Blame the keris not the broom' for the poor performance.
I had quarrels with my brothers that compelled my parent to stop us from bickering each other. We were children then. Now that we have families of our own, we understood why our parent had to come in between us to resolve our differences. They had gone and we missed them a lot. As leaders, they had indeed taught us to place greater importance on building relationships rather than bickering on each other. Thereafter, we move on to do what we were supposed to do.
Sometime in November - December 2006, I held a series of 12 Management Training sessions for Mayban Fortis. Mayban Fortis, Takaful Malaysia and MNI then were going through a merger process. I had quoted and shared a case story of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition in these sessions.
The 1982 Canadian Everest team had the best climbers from all over the world. The leader knew that even though they had the best people in the entire world at what they did, the trip would not be a success. This was because everyone in the team wants to get to the top for themselves. They did it for the glory of their own country and not for the good of their team. Not only that they never got to the top, at one point these successful climbers were throwing rocks at each other. What was frustrating, was to see them throwing rocks at each other when they were supposed to be in a team. And, what seemed to be even more crazy was that they dare throw rocks at each other when they were just attached to each other by ropes.
The above local news headlines are no different from this case story. More often than not, while leaders claimed they deserved their positions we still see them throwing 'verbal rocks' at people who are supposed to be on their team. Why? Only they can tell the reasons for doing so. But....surely we can learn from the experiences of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition Team. And we too can list the leadership lessons learnt.
Monday, April 28, 2008
People Follow Stronger Leader
When Dato' Seri Anwar made a statement that there are 30 Sabah MPs who would defect to join PKR and that PKR will be in a position to form the federal government no later than 16 September 2008, Dato' Seri Najib claimed that was part of Anwar's political game. Read The Star full report, here.
But, when Former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said on the possibility of Sabah MPs crossing over to PKR by virture of their background, Najib felt that the threats have to be taken seriously. In Sarawak, when SNAP said they are ready to defect and join PKR, Najib reiterated that Anwar's claim cannot be taken lightly.
While UMNO and BN have not totally resolved their internal issues, Sabah MPs and SNAP politicians are already on the verge of concluding their evaluation on the strengths of their current and future leadership.
Either they remain in BN or defect to join PKR, the leadership lesson learned is that people will follow leaders stronger than themselves. They too follow them out of respect ... and that is quite natural.
But, when Former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said on the possibility of Sabah MPs crossing over to PKR by virture of their background, Najib felt that the threats have to be taken seriously. In Sarawak, when SNAP said they are ready to defect and join PKR, Najib reiterated that Anwar's claim cannot be taken lightly.
While UMNO and BN have not totally resolved their internal issues, Sabah MPs and SNAP politicians are already on the verge of concluding their evaluation on the strengths of their current and future leadership.
Either they remain in BN or defect to join PKR, the leadership lesson learned is that people will follow leaders stronger than themselves. They too follow them out of respect ... and that is quite natural.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Was the Timing Right?
When Parti Keadilan Rakyat advisor and Former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, on his arrival in Sabah told reporters that Pakatan Rakyat is in a position to form the federal government no later than 16 September 2008, he is talking about right timing. The Star Online has the full report, here.
It appears to me that there are relationships between timing, what-to-do (mission) and where-to-go (vision)vis-a-vis leadership, the decisions made before the General Election (GE) and the outcomes of such decisions. Each one of these is equally important.
First, there was this denial on the dissolution of the Malaysian Parliament on the 12 February 2008. Then, in less than 24 hours came the announcement on the dissolution of the parliament on the 13 February 2008. This was followed by the EC Chairman's announcement on the polling date.
So, the decision was made on the GE and the polling date. Thereafter, there were opinions and feedbacks and reactions from both BN component parties and the oppositions. There were also allegations on the non-sensitivity on the part of the government as the Chinese were still celebrating their Chinese New Year.
When the results of the GE were announced, the ruling coalition, BN lost their 2/3 majority. On the other hand the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat set unprecedented victory and formed state governments in four additional states other than Kelantan. They also swept 10 seats out of 11 in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.
We have observed that the aftermath of GE resulted in calls from members of the ruling coalition especially UMNO, for the top leadership to take full responsibility for the dismal performance in the polls. We have also read in mainstream media instances of 'stone-throwing' among members of the ruling coalition at state leaderships for their poor performance, especially in the four states that had fallen to Pakatan Rakyat.
What can we learn from these unprecedented events?
Leaders recognized that execution is as important as the strategy (how to go to where you and your people want to be). But, effective leaders ensured that when to lead (timing) is as important as what to do (mission) and where to go (vision.)
When a leader decides to make his moves, there are four possible outcomes:
1. Disaster - when a wrong action is executed at a wrong time;
2. Mistakes - when a wrong action is executed at the right time;
3. Resistance to Change - when the right action is executed at the wrong timing;
4. Success - when the right action is executed at the right time.
In my assessment is it apparent that every Malaysian leader is mindful of these outcomes. But, what makes a leader great is his ability to effectively scan his environment, both internal and external and thereafter articulates himself and executes his strategic moves. However, if a leader repeatedly shows poor judgement, even in things regarded as trivial by his followers, then the followers will start to think and believe that having him is a liability.
It appears to me that there are relationships between timing, what-to-do (mission) and where-to-go (vision)vis-a-vis leadership, the decisions made before the General Election (GE) and the outcomes of such decisions. Each one of these is equally important.
First, there was this denial on the dissolution of the Malaysian Parliament on the 12 February 2008. Then, in less than 24 hours came the announcement on the dissolution of the parliament on the 13 February 2008. This was followed by the EC Chairman's announcement on the polling date.
So, the decision was made on the GE and the polling date. Thereafter, there were opinions and feedbacks and reactions from both BN component parties and the oppositions. There were also allegations on the non-sensitivity on the part of the government as the Chinese were still celebrating their Chinese New Year.
When the results of the GE were announced, the ruling coalition, BN lost their 2/3 majority. On the other hand the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat set unprecedented victory and formed state governments in four additional states other than Kelantan. They also swept 10 seats out of 11 in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.
We have observed that the aftermath of GE resulted in calls from members of the ruling coalition especially UMNO, for the top leadership to take full responsibility for the dismal performance in the polls. We have also read in mainstream media instances of 'stone-throwing' among members of the ruling coalition at state leaderships for their poor performance, especially in the four states that had fallen to Pakatan Rakyat.
What can we learn from these unprecedented events?
Leaders recognized that execution is as important as the strategy (how to go to where you and your people want to be). But, effective leaders ensured that when to lead (timing) is as important as what to do (mission) and where to go (vision.)
When a leader decides to make his moves, there are four possible outcomes:
1. Disaster - when a wrong action is executed at a wrong time;
2. Mistakes - when a wrong action is executed at the right time;
3. Resistance to Change - when the right action is executed at the wrong timing;
4. Success - when the right action is executed at the right time.
In my assessment is it apparent that every Malaysian leader is mindful of these outcomes. But, what makes a leader great is his ability to effectively scan his environment, both internal and external and thereafter articulates himself and executes his strategic moves. However, if a leader repeatedly shows poor judgement, even in things regarded as trivial by his followers, then the followers will start to think and believe that having him is a liability.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Power of Buying-In
The results of the 8 March General Election (GE) have changed Malaysia's political landscape. With five states fallen into the hands of Pakatan Rakyat, sooner or later, this change will certainly have some implications - for better or worst - on the society and economy.
In my previous postings, I have delved into some leadership principles and lessons learned. These principles and lessons learned are not necessarily exhaustive. I have also tried to critically analyze the presence of these principles in Malaysian leaders especially in regard to the performance of the recent GE. Through this analysis, I have somehow felt that there is a missing link. And, that missing link could probably explain the 'tsunami' that eventually changed Malaysia's political scenario.
In trying to find this missing link, I have resorted to various sources of information including electronic media - e-newspapers, YouTube video-clips and blogs such as BN Manifesto; PAS Manifesto, here and here; PKR Manifesto, here and here; DAP Campaign, here and here; and Pakatan Rakyat's Mission, here.
My analysis uncovered:
1. That there is a very close relationship between; firstly, the leader - that is centered on leadership attributes and influence, and secondly, the leader's vision - that is the destination the leader wants to take his followers to.
2. That it is quite natural for people to follow leaders that are stronger than themselves.
3. That people will only line-up behind the leader when they have bought-in both the leader as well as his vision.
4. That leaders first need to set a dream (vision) and then find his people.
5. That people first find their leaders and then their dreams.
Given the backdrop on the significance of leaders' attributes and their vision, the recent GE manifested that some leaders were able to not only buy-in but swing the people's support towards them. Others, though still in position, felt that they are slowly loosing the people who traditionally used to support them.These were due to leaders' ability to articulate and then align themselves or otherwise, to the people's dreams and wishes.
Politicians called this 'makkal sakhti', management and leadership gurus refer this as the power of buying-in. In much simpler terms, it is leadership engagement or organizational acceptance.
Perhaps, these video clips (1, 2, 3) give you better impressions of the points discussed above.
In my previous postings, I have delved into some leadership principles and lessons learned. These principles and lessons learned are not necessarily exhaustive. I have also tried to critically analyze the presence of these principles in Malaysian leaders especially in regard to the performance of the recent GE. Through this analysis, I have somehow felt that there is a missing link. And, that missing link could probably explain the 'tsunami' that eventually changed Malaysia's political scenario.
In trying to find this missing link, I have resorted to various sources of information including electronic media - e-newspapers, YouTube video-clips and blogs such as BN Manifesto; PAS Manifesto, here and here; PKR Manifesto, here and here; DAP Campaign, here and here; and Pakatan Rakyat's Mission, here.
My analysis uncovered:
1. That there is a very close relationship between; firstly, the leader - that is centered on leadership attributes and influence, and secondly, the leader's vision - that is the destination the leader wants to take his followers to.
2. That it is quite natural for people to follow leaders that are stronger than themselves.
3. That people will only line-up behind the leader when they have bought-in both the leader as well as his vision.
4. That leaders first need to set a dream (vision) and then find his people.
5. That people first find their leaders and then their dreams.
Given the backdrop on the significance of leaders' attributes and their vision, the recent GE manifested that some leaders were able to not only buy-in but swing the people's support towards them. Others, though still in position, felt that they are slowly loosing the people who traditionally used to support them.These were due to leaders' ability to articulate and then align themselves or otherwise, to the people's dreams and wishes.
Politicians called this 'makkal sakhti', management and leadership gurus refer this as the power of buying-in. In much simpler terms, it is leadership engagement or organizational acceptance.
Perhaps, these video clips (1, 2, 3) give you better impressions of the points discussed above.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Leadership Engagement
My associate and I had an appointment with one of our clients this afternoon. Our agenda was to discuss on strategic planning and develop a framework for implementation. Thereafter, translate the strategic plan into measurable operational terms.
When we go deeper into our discussion, we reckoned neither the process nor the system/technology propel the organization to realize its strategic plan. We came to a consensus that the most important element in an organization is the people behind the organizational processes, systems and technology.
"When we talk about leadership, we can't run away from politics." warned my client. "We should be able to draw a line, read the message in-between-lines and balance the situation." he added. Obviously he was inferring to office politics. We concurred with his observation.
The significance and relevance of visionary leadership and leader-follower engagement in managing and leading knowledge workers surfaced very vividly in our minds.
The brief discourse was indeed an invaluable hands-on experience that we could leverage for our future managerial development programs. Though local in flavor, it reaffirmed General Electric's (GE) advocacy that was shared when both of us attended the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) Seminar way back in mid 90's. In accelerating change, GE advocated leaders to identify what to change and think how to gain organizational acceptance before expecting any breakthrough.
Jimmy Mc Ginty, Washington DC Football Coach (The Replacements. DVD. 2000) when asked how his team could win the second half of the game, after loosing badly in the first half, responded, "You have to have miles and miles of heart to win the game and go to the final." Mc Ginty replaced the arrogant, self-centric quarter-master who played the first-half with Shane Falco, a team-player quarter-master who possessed a strong leader-follower connection. Washington DC won this game, made it to the final and won the championship.
You may wish to analyze this case, this case, this feedback and this coverage in light of the above discussions.
Hence, effective leaders need to know that they have to win the hearts and minds of their people first, before they could ask for their support. Leaders have to touch their (followers') hearts before asking for their hands.
When we go deeper into our discussion, we reckoned neither the process nor the system/technology propel the organization to realize its strategic plan. We came to a consensus that the most important element in an organization is the people behind the organizational processes, systems and technology.
"When we talk about leadership, we can't run away from politics." warned my client. "We should be able to draw a line, read the message in-between-lines and balance the situation." he added. Obviously he was inferring to office politics. We concurred with his observation.
The significance and relevance of visionary leadership and leader-follower engagement in managing and leading knowledge workers surfaced very vividly in our minds.
The brief discourse was indeed an invaluable hands-on experience that we could leverage for our future managerial development programs. Though local in flavor, it reaffirmed General Electric's (GE) advocacy that was shared when both of us attended the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) Seminar way back in mid 90's. In accelerating change, GE advocated leaders to identify what to change and think how to gain organizational acceptance before expecting any breakthrough.
Jimmy Mc Ginty, Washington DC Football Coach (The Replacements. DVD. 2000) when asked how his team could win the second half of the game, after loosing badly in the first half, responded, "You have to have miles and miles of heart to win the game and go to the final." Mc Ginty replaced the arrogant, self-centric quarter-master who played the first-half with Shane Falco, a team-player quarter-master who possessed a strong leader-follower connection. Washington DC won this game, made it to the final and won the championship.
You may wish to analyze this case, this case, this feedback and this coverage in light of the above discussions.
Hence, effective leaders need to know that they have to win the hearts and minds of their people first, before they could ask for their support. Leaders have to touch their (followers') hearts before asking for their hands.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Empowerment
More often than not, most managers feel that there is too much work to do and too little time to spend. They pushed themselves to get things done the best way possible in order to beat deadlines. Confronted with such circumstances, many resort to completing the work themselves. By doing so, they believed they are in control.
"If I delegate, I will end up spending extra time checking through the work to make sure my expectations are met. This is something that I can't afford. I don't have the luxury of time." opined a Vice President of a major Malaysian financial institution who attended my program on " Leading Towards A Positive Work Culture" sometimes in November - January 2006.
"How could I delegate and train others to do my job? If they perform better than I do, I will be displaced." another manager shared.
The above is a common scenario on empowerment, or the lack of it. Most managers shared such belief. Many complained about their stressful work and not few who admitted that they are 'burnt-outs'.
But, why do managers behaved that way? I have thrown similar question during my training sessions. Some of the conclusions that I could draw as barriers to empowerment are:
1. Fear for Job Security. Only weak leader worries if he helps to develop his subordinates, through delegation and trainings, he will be dispensable. The truth is: the only way for a manager to be indispensable is by being dispensable. In short, if a manager is able to continually develop others to take over his job, then he is indispensable to the organization. He is now ready to move on in his career ladder.
2. Complacency. Competency could lead a manager into complacency and lack of trust in his subordinates. Empowerment demands constant change - as it encourages people to grow, be creative and develop. Hence, complacency leads to resistance to change.
3. Lack of Self-esteem. I have touched a bit on this in my previous posting, here. Managerial position is a source of power - legitimate power. On the other hand, influence power is undoubtedly the source of leadership. Managers who have developed self-esteem, regarded change as stimulus. This is because they believe they make the difference and are in a position to influence the outcome. They are not only doers and motivators, but they also empower others.
Hence, managers need to reflect not only on how they have empowered their subordinates, or lack of it, but also examine the impact of their subordinates' possible behaviors on their performance. Managers should remind themselves that their subordinates' capacity to achieve and excel is dependent on their leadership ability to empower. What the subordinates are today, is the result of their previous leadership. May be this explains.
You may want to analyze this case in respect of the above discussions.
"If I delegate, I will end up spending extra time checking through the work to make sure my expectations are met. This is something that I can't afford. I don't have the luxury of time." opined a Vice President of a major Malaysian financial institution who attended my program on " Leading Towards A Positive Work Culture" sometimes in November - January 2006.
"How could I delegate and train others to do my job? If they perform better than I do, I will be displaced." another manager shared.
The above is a common scenario on empowerment, or the lack of it. Most managers shared such belief. Many complained about their stressful work and not few who admitted that they are 'burnt-outs'.
But, why do managers behaved that way? I have thrown similar question during my training sessions. Some of the conclusions that I could draw as barriers to empowerment are:
1. Fear for Job Security. Only weak leader worries if he helps to develop his subordinates, through delegation and trainings, he will be dispensable. The truth is: the only way for a manager to be indispensable is by being dispensable. In short, if a manager is able to continually develop others to take over his job, then he is indispensable to the organization. He is now ready to move on in his career ladder.
2. Complacency. Competency could lead a manager into complacency and lack of trust in his subordinates. Empowerment demands constant change - as it encourages people to grow, be creative and develop. Hence, complacency leads to resistance to change.
3. Lack of Self-esteem. I have touched a bit on this in my previous posting, here. Managerial position is a source of power - legitimate power. On the other hand, influence power is undoubtedly the source of leadership. Managers who have developed self-esteem, regarded change as stimulus. This is because they believe they make the difference and are in a position to influence the outcome. They are not only doers and motivators, but they also empower others.
Hence, managers need to reflect not only on how they have empowered their subordinates, or lack of it, but also examine the impact of their subordinates' possible behaviors on their performance. Managers should remind themselves that their subordinates' capacity to achieve and excel is dependent on their leadership ability to empower. What the subordinates are today, is the result of their previous leadership. May be this explains.
You may want to analyze this case in respect of the above discussions.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Leadership Process: Having An Open Mind
"It is a lot easier said than done." a participants in one of my training sessions remarked.
"Most leadership principles you shared with us seemed to make sense to young executives and managers like us. But, what we saw being practiced by our bosses are totally different." another young manager interjected.
Though sound like sweeping remarks, I understood what were at the back of their minds. I too understood what were brewing in their hearts.
I had to persuade them to envision what they want to be in their career and how they would like to be seen by their subordinates. After all, leadership is about influencing others for, without them, leadership is meaningless. I had also encouraged them to modify the way they see at issues from different perspectives.
The above remarks challenge managers to have an open mind. There are at least two different perspectives in the above situation. One, looking at how leaders' actions speak louder than their words. Second, looking at how one sees himself in relation to his managerial and leadership roles in an organization.
The first perception positions a manager as a follower. This has to do with how a manager conducts his self-talk or neuro-languistic programming (NLP). In this instance, the negative behaviors manifested by his superiors could demotivate him and erode his respect for his superiors. This could be very very stressful.
The second perception enables a manager to remind himself of his roles and responsibilities in regard to the people he leads vis-a-vis the direction of the organization. Then, this enables him to realign his deliverables and more importantly his behavior. In this way, a manager will be able to resolve his internal conflict, stay proactive and be able to garner support from the team members. He takes responsibility as a leader and he moves on.
As much as managers expected from their leaders, subordinates are looking-up at their manager and how he conducts himself. Subordinates do not care how much their manager knows, until they know how much their manager cares for them. Therefore, who a manager gets is not determined by what he wants but it is determined by who he is.
One must be mindful that an effective managerial leader is one who gets others to want to do their work. It is one who is able to get their followers to do their work not because they had to, but because they want to. And, in the long run, the response a manager gets is not necessarily determined by his position but more importantly, his stimuli.
"Most leadership principles you shared with us seemed to make sense to young executives and managers like us. But, what we saw being practiced by our bosses are totally different." another young manager interjected.
Though sound like sweeping remarks, I understood what were at the back of their minds. I too understood what were brewing in their hearts.
I had to persuade them to envision what they want to be in their career and how they would like to be seen by their subordinates. After all, leadership is about influencing others for, without them, leadership is meaningless. I had also encouraged them to modify the way they see at issues from different perspectives.
The above remarks challenge managers to have an open mind. There are at least two different perspectives in the above situation. One, looking at how leaders' actions speak louder than their words. Second, looking at how one sees himself in relation to his managerial and leadership roles in an organization.
The first perception positions a manager as a follower. This has to do with how a manager conducts his self-talk or neuro-languistic programming (NLP). In this instance, the negative behaviors manifested by his superiors could demotivate him and erode his respect for his superiors. This could be very very stressful.
The second perception enables a manager to remind himself of his roles and responsibilities in regard to the people he leads vis-a-vis the direction of the organization. Then, this enables him to realign his deliverables and more importantly his behavior. In this way, a manager will be able to resolve his internal conflict, stay proactive and be able to garner support from the team members. He takes responsibility as a leader and he moves on.
As much as managers expected from their leaders, subordinates are looking-up at their manager and how he conducts himself. Subordinates do not care how much their manager knows, until they know how much their manager cares for them. Therefore, who a manager gets is not determined by what he wants but it is determined by who he is.
One must be mindful that an effective managerial leader is one who gets others to want to do their work. It is one who is able to get their followers to do their work not because they had to, but because they want to. And, in the long run, the response a manager gets is not necessarily determined by his position but more importantly, his stimuli.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Where Do Leaders and Followers Match Up?
The alternative media have provided us with myriad of the most up-to-date information. I have indeed watched most of the video clippings on Malaysian leaders broadcast on YouTube. What attracted me most are video-clippings on how some of our leaders responded (most, however, reacted) to the aftermath of the March 8 General Election.
Two of these videos which I have spent some time are on the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir Mohamad and his one-time heir apparent Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Several questions arose in my mind: What attracted their followers? What qualities or attributes do they offer? Where do they match up with their followers?... and many more.
My analysis on these videos uncovers that each one of them has shared goals vis-a-vis their followers in several key areas: attitude towards their followers; the ability to bridge generation gap - in terms of approaches deployed in managing both age group and mindset; background and common cause for actions; common values, and leadership ability.
In short, who they are is who they attract.
So, if many of us still feel that the people working with us are negative, then it time for us to double-check our own attitude. For, the better leader we are, the better leaders we will attract. And, if we think our followers could do better then ourselves, then it is time for us to further improve ourselves.
"Who you get is not determined by what you want. It is determined by who you are." - J. C. Maxwell
Two of these videos which I have spent some time are on the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Mahathir Mohamad and his one-time heir apparent Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Several questions arose in my mind: What attracted their followers? What qualities or attributes do they offer? Where do they match up with their followers?... and many more.
My analysis on these videos uncovers that each one of them has shared goals vis-a-vis their followers in several key areas: attitude towards their followers; the ability to bridge generation gap - in terms of approaches deployed in managing both age group and mindset; background and common cause for actions; common values, and leadership ability.
In short, who they are is who they attract.
So, if many of us still feel that the people working with us are negative, then it time for us to double-check our own attitude. For, the better leader we are, the better leaders we will attract. And, if we think our followers could do better then ourselves, then it is time for us to further improve ourselves.
"Who you get is not determined by what you want. It is determined by who you are." - J. C. Maxwell
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Assertivness and Leadership
Do you often made to feel you are not included, belittled, used etc. by people around you especially in formal gatherings and meetings? You want to speak for yourself but instead think that you may offend others. You wanted to express your ideas but feared being perceived as aggressive?
In my recent posting, you will observe that political leaders manifested their assertions on what they believed to be the best course of action undertaken by some State UMNO chiefs and top UMNO leadership for the huge losses during the 8 March General Election.
But why? Being assertive you will: gain self-esteem; gain confidence and the confidence of the people you lead; stand up for yourself and others when you need to; negotiate productively with others; promote personal growth and fulfillment; adopt self-managed life style; and take responsibility for the quality relationships with others.
If your answers to the above questions are 'yes', your next step is to learn more about how to be assertive.
Request for more information, send your e-mail to: orais.consult@gmail.com
In my recent posting, you will observe that political leaders manifested their assertions on what they believed to be the best course of action undertaken by some State UMNO chiefs and top UMNO leadership for the huge losses during the 8 March General Election.
But why? Being assertive you will: gain self-esteem; gain confidence and the confidence of the people you lead; stand up for yourself and others when you need to; negotiate productively with others; promote personal growth and fulfillment; adopt self-managed life style; and take responsibility for the quality relationships with others.
If your answers to the above questions are 'yes', your next step is to learn more about how to be assertive.
Request for more information, send your e-mail to: orais.consult@gmail.com
Leader Sees Farther Than Others
Two articles published by The Star Online on 15 April 2008, really caught my eyes.
The first article reported a call for a change in Perak’s UMNO leadership with Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli being urged to resign as State UMNO Chief. Datuk Mohd Radzi Manan, Kampar UMNO division chief said Tajol Rosli had failed to give the state any direction since Barisan Nasional suffered huge losses during the March 8 polls.
“Until today, he has not given any signal on what needs to be done or issued any statements on the direction of the party in the state,” said Radzi, the former Tualang Sekah assemblyman.
“Our leaders must be forward-looking, be able to unite everyone and have the ability to move the state machinery,” added Radzi.
The rest of the news is reported here.
The second article, an excerpt from drkhir.blogspot.com reported Datuk Seri Khir Toyo’s call on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to draw up his retirement plan and pass the baton to his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“Abdullah must draw up an exit plan that should include turning over the party’s and country’s leadership to Najib. This is my humble and personal view,” he said in his April 12 posting.
The full report is here.
These articles reminded me of an episode where the then South African President De Clerk, when confronted by Mandela, denied any knowledge on the involvement of the South African Police Force in the supply of arms to Inkata Freedom Party for them to use against the ANC.
Mandela, in Mandela & De Clerk (DVD 1997), blasted De Clerk:
“Any leader who chooses to remain blind when vision is what our nation needs, is a lost man. A lost man can never lead anywhere.”
Mandela later assumed the Presidency in 1991 after spending 27 years in prison.
"A leader is one who sees more than others see, who sees farther than others see, and who sees before others do." Leroy Eims
The first article reported a call for a change in Perak’s UMNO leadership with Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli being urged to resign as State UMNO Chief. Datuk Mohd Radzi Manan, Kampar UMNO division chief said Tajol Rosli had failed to give the state any direction since Barisan Nasional suffered huge losses during the March 8 polls.
“Until today, he has not given any signal on what needs to be done or issued any statements on the direction of the party in the state,” said Radzi, the former Tualang Sekah assemblyman.
“Our leaders must be forward-looking, be able to unite everyone and have the ability to move the state machinery,” added Radzi.
The rest of the news is reported here.
The second article, an excerpt from drkhir.blogspot.com reported Datuk Seri Khir Toyo’s call on Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to draw up his retirement plan and pass the baton to his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
“Abdullah must draw up an exit plan that should include turning over the party’s and country’s leadership to Najib. This is my humble and personal view,” he said in his April 12 posting.
The full report is here.
These articles reminded me of an episode where the then South African President De Clerk, when confronted by Mandela, denied any knowledge on the involvement of the South African Police Force in the supply of arms to Inkata Freedom Party for them to use against the ANC.
Mandela, in Mandela & De Clerk (DVD 1997), blasted De Clerk:
“Any leader who chooses to remain blind when vision is what our nation needs, is a lost man. A lost man can never lead anywhere.”
Mandela later assumed the Presidency in 1991 after spending 27 years in prison.
"A leader is one who sees more than others see, who sees farther than others see, and who sees before others do." Leroy Eims
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
