This article does ring a bell. While much has been said about the so-called scandal, PWC's report finalised, tabled in parliament and made public though, the issue is far from over.
Looking at the issue in light of the managerial leadership aspect, the much talked scandal has negated the applicability of Katz's model on managerial skills.
While Katz's conceptual and technical skills can be likened to the pedal and the rear wheel that drive a bicycle, the human skill can be likened to the front wheel. The latter dictates whether the rider reaches his destination or otherwise. The analogy implies that human skill is paramount in ensuring managerial effectiveness.
The present business environment where businesses are run at the speed of thought and are boundaryless, the much debated scandals like PKFZ, BMF, ENRON, Arthur Anderson etc. etc. (and the list goes on and on and on) however, have challenged organisations to look beyond Katz's.
In today's environment, Katz's will only be complete and balanced if both aspects of 'outside-in' and 'inside-out' human competencies are nurtured into managerial leadership. Human skill needs both the essence and the soul to make it complete and balanced. Otherwise, it becomes hollow. Such emptiness turns employees' commitment meaningless, vision/mission statements into corporate decorations and corporate governance a mockery.
Human skill requires both to keep knocking on one's conscience from within. This is spirituality - this is spiritual skill. Spiritual skill provides the true context and meaning of subservience, loyalty, integrity, accountability etc and the continual consciousness of the ultimate concern.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
What Can Leaders Learn From Badan and Nyawa
The differing stand between Selangor Excos on the recent beer issue reminds me of Badan and Nyawa, two characters played in one of the most popular Malay movie classics, Nujum Pak Belalang.
In one of the episodes, Nyawa (S. Shamsuddin) and Badan ( Dato' Aziz Sattar) stole 2 cows and 2 goats from a village called Beringin Rendang. When they reached at a secluded place in the village, they decided to divide what they have stolen.
In the first round, Badan divided the stolen animals. Nyawa was not pleased with Badan as he was given 2 goats whilst Badan had 2 cows. Obviously, cows are both bigger in value and in size than goats. Nyawa called Badan a cheat. When Nyawa had his turn, instead of dividing the stolen animals equally, Nyawa did exactly what Badan had done. Nyawa called himself a cheat. Thereafter, they flexed their muscles and quarreled.
Badan and Nyawa had divided the lines (ropes) equaly but not the animals. They had indeed lost focus on the issue and more importantly they have totally forgotten that they have a shared goal - to divide the loot equally.
Belalang who had all the while been hiding on a tree saw an opportunity to seize all the animals when both Badan and Nyawa quarrelled over their loot. Belalang tricked both Nyawa and Badan who then hurriedly fled for their lives. Belalang had all the animals to be subsequently returned to the villagers.
The above is a synopsis of the what can be a cynical episode. It is cynical as we relate this episode in this Malay classic produced in 1959 to the diverging directions taken by Selangor government leaders on the recent issue.
I guessed the late Tan Sri P. Ramlee could be really displeased as leaders have not learned:
i) that organisation is vulnerable to attacks from third party if their leaders are going separate directions
ii) to resolve conflicts by focusing on common goals
iii) to move emotions before moving actions
The cue is, leaders need not have to wait till someone said "I have told you so." By then every efforts would be futile and followers left in limbo due to lack of direction on the part of their leaders.
In one of the episodes, Nyawa (S. Shamsuddin) and Badan ( Dato' Aziz Sattar) stole 2 cows and 2 goats from a village called Beringin Rendang. When they reached at a secluded place in the village, they decided to divide what they have stolen.
In the first round, Badan divided the stolen animals. Nyawa was not pleased with Badan as he was given 2 goats whilst Badan had 2 cows. Obviously, cows are both bigger in value and in size than goats. Nyawa called Badan a cheat. When Nyawa had his turn, instead of dividing the stolen animals equally, Nyawa did exactly what Badan had done. Nyawa called himself a cheat. Thereafter, they flexed their muscles and quarreled.
Badan and Nyawa had divided the lines (ropes) equaly but not the animals. They had indeed lost focus on the issue and more importantly they have totally forgotten that they have a shared goal - to divide the loot equally.
Belalang who had all the while been hiding on a tree saw an opportunity to seize all the animals when both Badan and Nyawa quarrelled over their loot. Belalang tricked both Nyawa and Badan who then hurriedly fled for their lives. Belalang had all the animals to be subsequently returned to the villagers.
The above is a synopsis of the what can be a cynical episode. It is cynical as we relate this episode in this Malay classic produced in 1959 to the diverging directions taken by Selangor government leaders on the recent issue.
I guessed the late Tan Sri P. Ramlee could be really displeased as leaders have not learned:
i) that organisation is vulnerable to attacks from third party if their leaders are going separate directions
ii) to resolve conflicts by focusing on common goals
iii) to move emotions before moving actions
The cue is, leaders need not have to wait till someone said "I have told you so." By then every efforts would be futile and followers left in limbo due to lack of direction on the part of their leaders.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Quality x Acceptance = Breakthrough
The current political scenario in Perak is indeed an interesting topic for discussion. It has hit the headlines of both old and new media. It became topic for coffee shops discussions and parliamentary debates.
This short article attempts to view lessons learned from this political crisis.
The crisis has inevitably raised points for discussion around at least three issues in management - quality (or quality performance), acceptance and excellence (or even breakthrough).
The situation in Perak deals with change. In any given change effort, there are two parties involved. One, those championing the change (the change leader) and the other, those affected by the change effort (the change followers).
While both parties may acknowledge (or still trying to acknowledge) the fact that change is the only constant factor in life, it is not uncommon to expect resistance from the change followers. They have their own fears and discomfort brought about by the change effort especially so when it is perceived to have adverse effects on them.
What can also be learned from the Perak case is that, the entire change effort could even brew into an impasse. Whether this could be blamed on either the change leader or the change followers, or both - the outcome has caused the people at large (the employee as in the case of an organisation) to live with a lot of uncertainties.
Another point learned from this crisis is the need for both parties to turn conflict into cooperation by focusing on common goal - the people ( the employees, in the case of an organisation). Considering that each party has once assumed the role of change leader, focusing on common goal is easier said than done. It is therefore an issue of whether one party is willing to be led by the other. It is about acceptance. It is about values system.
Hence, regardless of the noble intent (in achieving quality performance, in the case of an organisation), change leaders would not be able to achieve breakthrough result(s) unless their change effort is accepted by the change followers. And that depends a lot on how leaders are being perceived and accepted by the followers.
See also my previous article on 'The Power of Buying In'
This short article attempts to view lessons learned from this political crisis.
The crisis has inevitably raised points for discussion around at least three issues in management - quality (or quality performance), acceptance and excellence (or even breakthrough).
The situation in Perak deals with change. In any given change effort, there are two parties involved. One, those championing the change (the change leader) and the other, those affected by the change effort (the change followers).
While both parties may acknowledge (or still trying to acknowledge) the fact that change is the only constant factor in life, it is not uncommon to expect resistance from the change followers. They have their own fears and discomfort brought about by the change effort especially so when it is perceived to have adverse effects on them.
What can also be learned from the Perak case is that, the entire change effort could even brew into an impasse. Whether this could be blamed on either the change leader or the change followers, or both - the outcome has caused the people at large (the employee as in the case of an organisation) to live with a lot of uncertainties.
Another point learned from this crisis is the need for both parties to turn conflict into cooperation by focusing on common goal - the people ( the employees, in the case of an organisation). Considering that each party has once assumed the role of change leader, focusing on common goal is easier said than done. It is therefore an issue of whether one party is willing to be led by the other. It is about acceptance. It is about values system.
Hence, regardless of the noble intent (in achieving quality performance, in the case of an organisation), change leaders would not be able to achieve breakthrough result(s) unless their change effort is accepted by the change followers. And that depends a lot on how leaders are being perceived and accepted by the followers.
See also my previous article on 'The Power of Buying In'
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Only Great Leaders Build Other Leaders
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
