Tiny thinks and tiny thoughts

Oh To be a Citizen of the World!

2005-10-11T11:25:00.000+08:00

I was reflecting how much I am enjoying my life here in Singapore and how that is thanks to its (in my opinion enlightened) policy of welcoming foreigners to their shores to work and live.

Although I did enjoy my time in Malaysia, I was fed up with it after awhile and wanted to see someplace different and I just went south to Singapore. But what if I want to move elsewhere in future? With so many countries tightening their borders it will be difficult to move. I then thought, “wouldn’t it be great if we could move from country to country just like we moved from job to job and company to company”? If everyone was free to move to wherever they liked, unpopular regimes and policies would drive people away just like a poorly run company would lose its customers and staff. Market forces would be brought to bear on political systems and we will have a “democratic” earth where people vote with the feet…

Of course, this would mean an end to patriotism. But what does it really mean to be patriotic? After all, allegiance to a country is really allegiance to a way of life. When one fights for one’s country, one is fighting for a particular way of life. If it so happens that I do not like that way of life, then there really is no reason to be patriotic is there? Off I go to another land that can better provide for my needs. Perhaps there will not need to be wars anymore if we are free to come and go as we please… on the other hand that would be wishful thinking. One should not doubt man’s ability to fight and wage war and annihilate itself for even the smallest of things as that is his nature… alas!

Democracy – Not all that it is cut out to be...

2005-08-28T14:32:00.000+08:00

Democracy! The idea that the majority rules, seems to be one of the most popular systems of selecting governments and manage many affairs and situations in the world. But I say we need to continue to search for an alternative. Despite its flaws (and there are a few critical ones) we should not be blinded by the idea that the best we have now is equal to the best we will ever have.

For example, if for arguments sake, your electorate consisted of a bunch of intellectually disabled people, would you trust the outcome of any poll? This is obviously an extreme scenario but it serves to illustrate the point! Most electorates are either not fully informed of the issues or not educated enough to understand them. So how is it valid to be asking them to decide on who governs? Of course in this day and age of the internet and greater media coverage, issues are discussed much more than before but the issues have also become more complex. But sweep all that aside for a moment and look at the latest US Presidential elections. Kerry for all his intellectual prowess (compared to Bush) and experience was reduced to the simple label of "Flip Flopper" by the media. Is changing your mind about something that bad. I sure would hope that my leader would have the moral courage to change his/her mind if they knew it was for the greater good!

For another example, would a company conduct a survey of how much salary increases to offer its people? Of course not! We are selfish and we want what is best for ourselves and ourselves only. Well, perhaps, that may extend to one’s immediate family but that’s about it. If we really think people vote for policies because they think it is for the greater good, then we are seriously living in a fantasy.

I am certainly not a great supporter of democracy. Unfortunately, I have not seen a better system so I grudgingly support it in the absence of a better system. But I sure hope someone somewhere is working out some way better because the current process leaves a lot to be desired.

In Support of Klingon Culture

2005-08-19T11:23:00.000+08:00

With all the corporate scandals in America, the recent problems at NKF and the numerous times we have witnessed issues arising because someone was “just following the bosses instruction”, it made me think of the failures in checks and balances that has allowed such things to happen. In most cases, the external institutions (e.g. auditors) that were supposed to act as the check and balance were found wanting. Anyway, external agencies can never know the details of an organization as well as those on the “inside”. So, I am implying that organizations need to police themselves. But is that possible to do effectively? Isn’t that a conflict of interest? That is when I thought about how things are done by the Klingons (of Star Trek fame).

In the Klingon world, it is well known and accepted that the duty of someone in a position of responsibility (lets say an officer) is to keep his/her superior in check. Ultimately he/she is even allowed to kill the superior officer if it is thought that the superior’s actions would endanger the common good. Of course, I am not advocating murder, but you get my point! If all those in positions of responsibility or authority have a deputy whose duty it is to be the check and balance, we would probably have less scandals, although perhaps more debates!

I believe this is similar to the concept of “dual control” which is already commonly used in Financial Institutions where much of the risk is mitigated by separating processes that entail access to money. Such processes are split into separate units (whether it is separate individuals, as in a combination to a safe, or separate departments, as in a trading room and its limits). It is precisely because this principle separation of responsibilities was negated that Nick Leeson was able to rack up such a huge position that ultimately brought down Barings Bank in Singapore.

Imagine, if every President had to look over their shoulder to ensure that the Vice-President agreed with his/her actions before doing something. If every Deputy Prime Minister was watching the PM for any poor decisions, you would probably get slower government and management but you would probably also have less risk and scandals.

Lets have a more Klingon culture I say…!

Killing the Innocent

2005-07-27T23:21:00.000+08:00

Unfortunately, another innocent life has been snuffed out in the “war against terror”. I am of course speaking of the killing of the Brazilian by police recently in London. Brazilians are protesting (as you would expect) but many British are also concerned and calling for a review and an investigation. On my part, I was dismayed (but not surprised) to read (in the ST I think) that if it had happened here, we would have kept quiet… why is it so many of us look the other way when something nasty happens to “somebody else”. This society and culture is sometimes so sad…

Anyway, my feelings on the entire issue were so well summed by one John Gardner that I just had to put his views up. I fully support what he has to say and simply hope that the review and investigation will lead to improvements in policing in general so that all police forces the world over may learn from this tragedy…

John says; Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police's Mossad-style execution of a 'suspect' (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July. This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one's friends than by one's enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July: (I believe he is talking about British law here…)
(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions.
(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.
(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw (foreign minister) and Sir Ian Blair (police chief) say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary.
(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!
(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice.
(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.
(8) Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn't mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.

(By the way, the fact that John is the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, and occasional Visiting Professor at Yale Law School, in no way influenced my thinking on the matter…ha ha ha.)

Racism / Prejudice

2005-07-19T10:44:00.000+08:00

Have you noticed that when conversations here move towards whether this or that country is a nicer place to stay, e.g. the UK, Australia, the US, then someone will inevitably bring up the subject of racism and perhaps encounters of it in these specific countries? There will be the shaking of heads, the wagging of fingers and even sighs of despondency will be heard. But that in itself is neither here nor there…

What I find curious is that although we tut-tut at the perceived racism encountered in such countries, we hardly bat an eyelid to the stuff that happens in our own backyard! Try looking around for a place to rent in Singapore by using the phone to contact the numbers placed in the newspapers and you will get agents asking about your background, what you do for a living and your race! Many of them would thereafter sheepishly explain that they had to find out on their clients behalf as their client does not want to rent to Indians because they “smell”. I find it incredible that they are so upfront! Look further at the ads and you can see some touting Indian owners looking for tenants. It appears the race of the owner is an important fact to provide! I also new of a Chinese lady with an Indian boyfriend who was looking for a flat to rent… Initially, the agents were welcoming but once they knew the boyfriend was Indian and would also be sharing the flat, their tunes changed!

That’s just the rental scene. How about the employment scene? I have seen cases where Malays seem to get the short end of the stick. There was once when I was going to select a Malay candidate and I was asked by my superior whether I was sure I knew what I was doing… implying that perhaps I should get my head examined,… or was I too sensitive? That was just my reading of the situation.

How about the political scene? Can you imagine the Republican party in the US or the Conservatives in the UK saying they only allow whites or Anglo-Saxons are allowed membership? It would be unthinkable! However in a place like Malaysia we have race-based parties! Yes, there may be a National Front to pull them all together but no-one joins the National Front. Citizens join one of the race-based parties which is then part of the National Front. We do not bat an eyelid about such things and I find that amazing!

Thererfore, I think that;
1. Racism (or prejudice) is everywhere. We need not go to other countries to see it.
2. Racism is just a form of stereotyping. However, I truly believe that practically everyone stereotypes or generalizes. We need to do so to get things done in this complex world. The key, of course, is the extent to which we practice the stereotyping and generalization. For example we say “Singaporeans are generally hardworking people.” Is that not a generalization? I guess since it is perceived to be a positive generalization, it would not be controversial. How about “Singaporeans are quite ill behaved when they go out of their country to say, Johor or KL.” Hmmm, I am sure that will raise some protest...
3. I strongly believe that due to (1) and (2) above, we all have our own prejudices and it is just a matter of degrees. The key question is what can we do about it? For starters, I just hope we can start to recognize that we are all afflicted by it. Only then can we begin to decide whether or not we want to do anything about it.

MEME - ThE CooK NeXt DooR

2005-06-30T16:15:00.000+08:00

I must say this is the first time I am answering a meme… but what the heck, I don’t mind….

What is your first memory of baking/cooking on your own?
Besides the Maggi Mee stuff at home, the real cooking for myself has to be my first year at University overseas where I probably survived the short holidays without catered food by eating bread with beans and soup (not necessarily together of course). It was then that started experimenting with various “combinations”. Eating just bread and soup can be boring even for me so I tried putting stuff onto the bread…. Beans, cucumber, tomato, mushroom, cauliflower (not very good), fruits, luncheon meat, tomato sauce, black sauce, oyster sauce (good in small amounts), pepper etc etc.

Who had the most influence on your cooking?
No one. I take full responsibility for my lack of convention.

Do you have an old photo as “evidence” of an early exposure to the culinary world and would you like to share it?
Sorry, am not into taking photos of the self, even though photography used to be a hobby.

Mageiricophobia - do you suffer from any cooking phobia, a dish that makes your palms sweat?
No, but I would probably be nervous if I hypothetically had to cook for a date.

What would be your most valued or used kitchen gadgets and/or what was the biggest let down?
Most valued – a large pot. I used to cook boiled cabbage with a sprinkling of luncheon meat and oyster sauce in such a pot. Once everything was “soft” enough, I simply chucked enormous helpings of rice into the pot and ate directly from the pot thus negating the need for a plate… hey! I was a poor student. What was I supposed to do?

Name some funny or weird food combinations/dishes you really like - and probably no one else!
Well, my so called friends say that most of my food combinations are weird so it’s a little difficult to say. Actually I just eat to survive so I can’t comment much here.

What are the three eatables or dishes you simply don’t want to live without?
Well, I have always liked jelly-based desserts, and generally speaking, I like egg based dishes and dishes with mushrooms.

Any question you missed in this meme, that you would have loved to answer?
What eating situation would you most like to act out?
To pre-prepare a small helping of warm brown oatmeal (perhaps with bit of fruit) in an airline provided air-sickness bag. Get on a commercial flight and replace empty air-sickness bag with your own, pre-prepared with warm oatmeal with fruit before other passengers seat next to you. As the plane takes off, rush to take air-sickness bag and pretend to throw up in said bag (with relevant sound effects thrown in). Then to immediately feel the warm oatmeal you know is at the bottom of the bag while looking around at your neighbours who are most probably already very wary of you. Thereafter, to rummage in bag to look for a piece of fruit, hold up, sniff and devour. Immediately then whip out a foldable spoon and eat the contents of the bag with gusto! Your neighbours will then leave you alone for the rest of the flight…!

Three quickies:
Your favourite ice-cream… : Haagen Daz, Vanilla
You will probably never eat… : Anything still living and most things considered “exotic”. I am not very adventurous with food as I do not really see the point!
Your own signature dish… : I guess my friends would say boiled cabbage and oatmeal… but not together please!

Who do you want most to cook you dinner?
People are going to think me strange but… Margaret Thatcher! If only for the dinner and post dinner conversations.

Three people to tag:
I really do not know any other bloggers with the exception of Boo_licious who gave the meme to me in the first place so I can’t really do this part.

On Love

2005-06-06T10:07:00.000+08:00

According to Freud, falling in love is best thought of as a short acting, spontaneously remitting psychosis. A psychosis no less!

He also observed that falling in love is frequently accompanied by a variety of symptoms which, clinically stated, sounds like the characteristics of a disorder. A psychosis and a disorder!! Evidence? Well how about changes in mood, physical restlessness, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, disturbance of work patterns, ruminative thinking, and delusional beliefs about a person which do not correspond to others’ perception of reality?

“The exaggerated sense of well being produced by a state of love means all might not portend well in the long run if this state is used as the basis for long term decision making – like the choice of a life partner. The divorce statistics alone indicate that love is an unreliable basis for making choices, let alone the countless occasions when detached observers consider a match unlikely or ill-advised.” (…extracted from a book titled “From the edge of the Couch” by Dr Raj Persaud which I am currently reading…)

At the risk of sounding like a Vulcan from the Star Trek franchise, this is an example of how clinging to emotions do us in and it is also an argument for the primacy of logic to rule our everyday lives.

Funerals - more for the living than the dead?

2005-05-11T11:05:00.000+08:00

Having seen a few funerals recently it got me thinking about the purpose of it all… Why all the elaborate ceremonies for the body of the deceased? Yes, we honour the people, what they have done, remember their good deeds etc. For sure! But many also believe that the soul has left for a better place, or heaven or whatever you call it depending on your religion. So what about the corporeal body? Many believe that it is simply a receptacle for the soul which is why some do not have any qualms about incinerating it when a person dies. Well, here is my view…

Firstly, I just think that it is natural for people to want to cling onto something tangible, something more tangible than a memory. Something they can touch. Even if you believe the soul has “moved on” we need an urn, or the ashes, or a casket, or a tombstone to help in the memory of a person. It helps emotionally as the person we knew, we always knew in the flesh, not as a spirit! So even if logically, we know that when we go to the gravesite there really is nothing much there but (sad to say) deteriorating flesh, it helps us in the mourning and grieving process.

Secondly, people tend to see themselves in the world that surrounds them. For example, a nice, sincere person is likely to think that others are nice and sincere as well (generally speaking of course). A crook would tend to be wary of others since he would think “if it is so easy for me to con others, I had better watch for con-artists myself”. But to return to my point, we tend to “see ourselves” in the dead person’s shoes so to speak. We probably tend to treat the dead with respect as that is how we ultimately wish to be treated ourselves when we go. We all feel comfortable in belonging to a civilised and cultured society where the dead are treated with due honour. The day we depart (no pun intended) from this practice is the day we begin to feel concerned about our body will be treated after death.

That is why I think funerals, if you really analysed it, is for us the living, rather than for our dearly departed.

Proof That We All Possess a Hot Ass!

2005-03-26T22:23:00.000+08:00

No, I am not referring to “hot” in terms of sexiness but “hot” in terms of temperature. Think about the all the times we have been on the train or bus and we sit down in a seat that someone has just left. In how many of those situations did you feel yourself sitting in a seat that felt “warm” or even “hot”? The answer is probably every time correct? Assuming everyone has a “normal” body temperature of 98.4 F, how do we explain the above phenomena? Furthermore, after we have sat down for awhile, presumably, the seat will take on the approximate temperature of our own butt. And then, when we get up from the seat, the next person to sit will then feel that it is we who had the hot butt. Interesting? That’s why I think we all have a hot ass!

(Well, actually, if you think about it, air or room temperature is always going to be cooler than our body temperature. So our butts are normally acclimatized to room temperatures and we will therefore feel the “warmth” of a recently occupied seat because of the change in temperature from that of the room to that of the seat. I guess this is the real explanation but personally, I like to think that I have a hot ass!)

The Devolution of the Human Race, No Less!

2005-03-06T00:19:00.000+08:00

What I am about to say may be highly controversial but that is hardly my intention. It is just a thought that occurred to me and I bear no ill will towards my fellow members of the human race. What am I on about? Well, consider the nature and evolution. Many people believe that all of us, animals, humans etc are what we are and the way we are because of evolution and the survival of the fittest. Therefore, how we look, what we are, is deemed by natural selection to be the most appropriate for the survival of our species at this given point in time.

My thought is, are we as humans interfering with this natural selection process? Consider what we as humans in our supposedly “enlightened ways” are doing in assisting the mentally handicapped, or those with hereditary diseases lead as normal lives as possible? How about legislation allowing women to be surrogate mothers of homosexual couples? How about even helping those with poor eyesight to use spectacles? Essentially, have we, as members of the human species considered the implications of enabling individuals that have the propensity to weaken the gene pool to survive and breed and pass on those genes to the next generation and the next? (…I told you this would be controversial…!) Is it possible that by doing so, we could be sowing the seeds of our extinction? Far fetched? Perhaps but even if I am correct, it will not be for millennia to come.

The more important point is, does it not make sense? Natural selection weeds out the weak and enables the “strongest” or most resilient genes to propagate itself thus strengthening the gene pool. Our “enlightened” approach turns all this upside down! Of course, some argue that this is what makes us human and separates us from the animals. So, it is possible that the actions that are supposed to separate us from the animals may truly “separate” us from animals by destroying ourselves….!

In my view, as long as we are aware of the possible implications of what we are doing and we accept that, then go ahead. Indeed, to help others knowing it could eventually weaken our species is probably the most noble and selfless thing we can do. Anyway, none of this will happen in our lifetimes and we will see the trend long before our extinction. I am therefore happy to pass this burden of consideration to future generation of people…

To Tolerate the Intolerant

2005-02-20T01:53:00.000+08:00

It is all around us. You can see it in the streets, while driving, walking, in the air, even in the water, anywhere there are humans I guess… What is it you may ask? Pollution? Well, that is one of the symptoms... but I am ranting about inconsiderate and intolerant behaviour.

We can see inconsiderate behaviour when the flipping cell-phone rings during a movie, or when people rush into the trains before others have had a chance to get off and don’t get me started on drivers on our roads! I guess these the more “blatant” ones but how about the less “obvious” ones?

How about drinking and driving? I think it shows fairly blatant disregard for the safety and lives of others even if the driver should reach home safely. How about using more plastic bags than you really need to when you go shopping? That’s being inconsiderate about the environment which affects everyone. I guess the question that arises then is where do we draw the line? Is the fact that I am typing this stuff on my laptop in the middle of the night simply to satisfy my urge to speak out a case of inconsiderate behaviour since I am using up electricity and energy? Hmmm… lets move on.

The examples above are errors (if you can call it that) of commission. How about errors of omission? How about not helping when someone is clearly in need? How about the able-bodied person ignoring a standing, less able-bodied person on a train or bus?

I actually think that by doing nothing about the inconsiderate people around us, we are actually allow it to multiply and grow to a menace that will affect us in some way in future. If only we could all work together and support one another so that we do not tolerate the intolerant. For example, if people knew that 95% of a cinema audience would have the guts to approach an inconsiderate cell phone chatter box, I am sure we will see the last of their kind.

Ah… for a place called utopia…

HR – Pro-Business or Pro-Labour

2005-02-13T23:38:00.000+08:00

Many people think that you can be both pro business and pro labour. Indeed, as employees, we would like to think that if companies take care of employees, the business will thrive “naturally”. I for one seriously doubt it!

Caring for employees is one thing. But if we do it to the extent that it begins to border on “spoiling” them, then it is a step too far. The question is of course, when does caring become spoiling. If I knew where the sweet spot was, I would be a billionaire…

Have a look at countries around the region where labour legislation strongly favours employees and compare them with the situation in Singapore. We need not look far as Malaysia and Indonesia are example of countries with highly pro-labour legislation. Any business owner would want the freedom to manage his business the way he sees fit. If that means the removal of human resources that do not adequately “fit”, so be it. But just you try doing that in either Malaysia or Indonesia. You’d be hauled to a labour tribunal before you could say “compensation…”. In fact, it would not be so bad if all they ask you to do is compensate, but what you are sometimes forced to do is re-instate! Not only do you have to eat humble pie, the pie will be gratefully served to you by the previously dismissed employee!

Although it is far easier to “clean house” in Singapore, this kind of environment also makes it easy for employers who do not plan ahead and are poor managers of their human resources. And there are many out there. Such an environment does not sufficiently penalise such poor people managers who give all other “socially conscious” employers a bad name! On the part of employees, it breeds a lack of loyalty. Since job security is non-existent, employees do not feel much attachment for their employer and will move on at a drop of a hat (generally speaking of course).

So am I in favour of a pro-business or a pro-labour environment. Well, I am certainly pro-business. I believe that being pro-business creates a far better investment climate which will in turn create more jobs. What about the errant employers and the poor people managers who will sprout under such a regime? Well, for one, there will always be bad apples but I believe that in the internet era of easy information and fast communication, the market will “move” fast enough to sufficiently reduce their number as people shy away from wanting to be employed by such employers.

For Singapore, I hope I am right for all our sakes.

Is there such a thing as too much love?

2005-02-06T22:51:00.000+08:00

I am sure many of us are familiar with the Japanese culture where, individuals during a greeting or when saying farewell, have a kind of bowing competition where those involved try to out-do and “out-bow” one another in their quest to be polite. Yes, it may be simplistic but it helps to illustrate my point that there may be such a thing as too much of a good thing and by extension, such a thing as “too much” love.

If the above example is quirky and has not quite hit the point, how about the parent who “loves” the child so much so that the kid is spoilt rotten and protected from the trials and tribulations of “real life” so that the kid will supposedly lead a “good” life. Is it love when the result is that the child is then ill-equipped to handle the real world once his (or her) parents pass on and he has to fend for himself? That’s actually cruel.

How about when the parents “loves” the child so much that they dictate what profession they should move into “for their own good” when the child has inclinations in other areas that the parents may not know much about. Worse still if the inclination is towards in an area that is not considered “commercially viable”. The child then goes into a profession dictated by his parents but always feeling a little out of place. When the child matures to the point that he realizes that he may have chosen a profession not quite in line with his “aptitude” the kid is too far gone and it would require a drastic effort to change horses in mid-stream. Is that love? Again, I think it is cruel.

How about when a parent and child care so much for one another that they try to cater to each other’s needs and try to second guess their every move so that they each try to save one another from potential worry. What’s wrong with that you ask? Well, what if both parties detest being fussed over but they both fuss over one another because of this “love”? The result? They drift apart because they can’t stand the fuss! The irony of it all!

I am aware that my argument above focuses on the parental kind of love and the kid has not got the gumption to stand up for himself… but that is not my point. My questions remains, is there such a thing as too much love? I am not sure, but what I am sure about is that what the parents feel for the child in the above examples is not love. (If that is what it is, I want nothing to do with it.) To me love is certainly not selfish and if these parents were to engage in some introspection, they would realise that their approach to child rearing is utterly selfish and is designed to free them from worry rather than in the best interests of their children.

Having children is supposed to be as a result of an act of love… but that is another rant for another day.

HR - It’s Unfair!!

2005-01-29T01:00:00.000+08:00

Ah… the common refrain I hear oh so often from people whenever they feel they are hard done by. But what is fairness? To me it is like beauty,… it lies in the eyes (or mind in this case) of the beholder. Allow me to illustrate with an example from the commercial world.

Let us say you have two staff. One, Ms X, is a bright and fast worker and the other, Mr Y, not so quick on the uptake and a rather slow worker. They both have similar roles and you give them the same type and amount of work which should occupy them for 1 full working day. Ms X obviously finishes the work quicker than Mr Y. The question then is, which is the fairest approach:

i) To request that Ms X help Mr Y (after Ms X has finished her work) so that they both go home at the same time?
ii) To “reward” Ms X by allowing her to leave for home earlier, as soon as she finishes her share of the work, thereby leaving Mr Y to work “over-time” to complete his share?
iii) To give some of Mr Y’s work to Ms X such that they both have a “full days” worth of work to do, but to give Ms Y a better appraisal rating at the end of the year.

Ask any number of people and they will each have their own view of which of the above is the “fairest”. Indeed, some would even offer their own solution which they think is the fairer approach.

Managers who have worked in different countries on different continents have told me that people in Singapore and Malaysia tend to be preoccupied with the notion of “fairness” as if it is something universal that everyone understands. Granted that it is natural for people to seek some kind of “equity” or “justice” in everyday life but it appears that the issue of “fairness” seems to be raised much more often by those in Asia than in the west (this is a generalisation of course).

I tend to support the sentiments contained in the (rather curt) response that “life is unfair, so take it or leave it!” I really do believe we will not be able to agree on what is equitable or fair in any given situation and that we should all just strive (or fight) for the best deal possible and try to live with what we can get. The alternative (as is the case today) is that we will simply be miserable sods because we will just continue to complain and try to attain a concept which we think everyone else is trying to achieve but which really exists only in our own minds! A true exercise in futility… It’s so unfair!

You Talk So Much What About You?

2005-01-23T11:53:00.000+08:00

Why is it people are so fond of asking the above question when we choose to give some critique or give an opinion that is considered negative? For example, I could say to a friend who is busy looking for something he has misplaced in his messy office; “If you were more organized, you would probably encounter less difficulty locating your stuff…”, to which he will reply, “You talk so much (or, you think you are so smart) what about you?” referring to my equally messy office.

The question is, what in the world has this got to do with me??? I was merely stating an opinion or making an observation. If you think it is not valid, then the opinion or observation should be challenged on its own merits or otherwise. To throw my statement or opinion back at me smacks of defensiveness at best and petty revenge at worst. In the example above, so what if I am even more messy and disorganized? It still does not reduce the accuracy of my observations of my friend’s predicament.

There is the old saying that one should be able to take what one dishes out. Well, to me that statement arises out of ones emotions and frustrations. I believe that if one really makes an effort to remove the emotion from such situations, we would be better placed to develop and learn from others as a general rule.

To illustrate further, if a football coach were to criticize (constructively) a particular footballer’s ability, it is unlikely that the footballer concerned would pass aspersions on the coach’s own footballing ability. A good coach may not be a very good footballer but that does not detract from his ability to make observations of footballers. In the same way, if I am not an organised person, that does not mean I am unable to make observations of others who lack organizational skills. My powers of observation and assessment and my powers of organisation are separate issues. They are distinct qualities!

I think the main problem is, people usually have difficulty accepting criticism. Their pride dictates that they should defend themselves when under attack and they do this by attacking the perceived attacker. It is also natural that people tend to respond better when led by example. If people could only learn to respond to criticism by considering the possibility that the observer is correct… Naah, that would be too much to ask…

I am indeed losing faith in people’s ability to think logically and objectively. People’s emotions cloud so many issues… indeed, it could be argued that my own deteriorating faith in people is an emotional response to the very issue I have raised! Oh crap, I have just become a victim of my own diatribe…! That’s enough for today then.

HR - Alternative Methods for Effective Recruitment

2005-01-15T15:02:00.000+08:00

The interview is probably the most common tool used in the recruitment process. It is, of course, not the only tool available and in fact, studies have shown that there are other methods which are probably more effective.

For example, the use of psychometric tools is gaining in acceptance and is now used by many companies as part of their graduate selection process. Most psychometric tools from reputable companies (e.g. Saville & Holdsworth or SHL) have been rigorously tested and have been shown to be good predictors of future job performance. The most commonly used among them are the reasoning tests (sometimes called aptitude tests) and the personality questionnaire.

Reasoning or Aptitude tests provide users with a numerical score at the end of the test that indicate how the candidate performed compared to his/her peer group. This assists an employer to sift through a large number of candidates in a short space of time with a good degree of objectivity. The employer also has the advantage of lowering or increasing the “cut-off” score to suit their own requirements.

A personality questionnaire is different in that it is not a test. Such questionnaires are also not normally used in isolation during a recruitment process. Generally speaking, they normally give an indication of a candidate’s typical style, inclination or likes / dislikes. It essentially helps us focus on how a candidate may approach a job rather than their ability to perform that job. That is why personality questionnaires are best used in conjunction with other tools like an interview so that the areas of concern highlighted by the questionnaire may be adequately probed.

There are many other methods which can be used like Group Exercises, the In-Tray or In-basket tests, Analysis Presentations and even Role Plays or Interactive Exercises. Which method we choose to use depends on the competencies or behaviours we wish to assess. Alternatively, we could use a number of methods in one intensive assessment session usually called an Assessment Centre. Such methods are gaining in popularity amongst MNCs.

Logically speaking, the more methods we use, the more information on a candidate we obtain, the more robust our process and the more effective our recruitment overall. However, practically speaking, we are all short on time and budgets. We should therefore select those methods which provide information on the most important of the criteria / skills that the ideal candidate ought to have for the role that we need to fill.

In terms of interviews, it is a tool that is so commonly used that everyone thinks they have the skills to conduct an interview. Sometimes, this view is simply based on having been through a few interviews themselves! The problem is, research has shown that a poorly executed interview, that is, without proper planning, objectives and structure, is a very poor predictor of future job performance. It is actually not that easy to conduct a structured, well planned interview.

One effective way of structuring an interview is termed the competency or behavioural based interview method. In this approach, we first need to ascertain the behaviours that need to be assessed. We then develop our questions based on the philosophy that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour. As such, we spend most of the interview trying to gather “evidence” on past actions and activities relating to the competency being assessed.

Because of the enormous time and effort required to manage the recruitment effort effectively, it is now fairly popular for many companies to “outsource” most of the recruitment process to recruitment agencies or “head-hunters”. For very senior positions or for specialist positions where talent is scarce, such agencies conduct a thorough search of the market to obtain the most suitable candidate. However, for positions which are commonly found in most commercial organisations such as Marketing, HR or Finance Manager, agencies will search their database and sift through the numerous resumes that arrive through advertisements to identify the best matched candidate.

Since most recruitment agencies charge based on a percentage of the salary of the successful candidate, many companies think nothing of setting aside a princely sum for the luxury of outsourcing the identification of their most precious asset. In an era where competition and budgets are getting tighter, HR Managers need to put more thought to how they can extract more value from their partnership with external agencies. Companies should consider assessing their agencies on issues like how thorough are their assessments (considering the various tools available as shown above), what are their findings on the candidates being recommended, is there a need for a real search and if so, how will the search be conducted.

The recruitment process is one of the ways in which companies identify its future leaders (or perhaps even their present one). As such, it stands to reason that the process needs to be as rigorous and as robust as possible. As HR Managers, there is a need to thoroughly review the available options. Or else using head-hunters will not only cost you an arm and a leg, it could cost you your own head as well!

(This is a summary of a talk I gave at the Singapore HR Institute on 16 December 2004)

We Get What We Pay For – Or Do We??

2005-01-09T10:04:00.000+08:00

All of us are consumers of products and services. I think all of us also try to pay as little as possible for a product or service. However, there are times when we may feel a little generous or feel that we deserve a treat and we splurge good money on a little luxury. Be it a pair of Bally shoes or an LV Handbag.

I believe that if we were to really analyse the situation and keep our emotions in check, we will be aware that we are sometimes buying into the hype and paying simply to keep up with the Joneses. Granted that some luxury products that cost double of the “normal” ones really do provide “twice” the satisfaction, either because it has twice the amount of quality ingredients or it lasts twice as long etc. However, do all so called luxury products fall into such hallowed territory? I seriously doubt it! Hence, my contention that YOU may not get what you pay for. If not, who does? I mean, who really benefits from our hard earned cash used to buy into the hype and the brand? Well, it’s the owner or shareholders of the company that was responsible for the product or service and all the other people along the line responsible for providing you with that product or service.

I do not have a problem with products or services costing twice as much but providing twice the satisfaction. However, the world works on the principle of Caveat Emptor or “let the buyer beware”. That’s the thrust of my argument. We need to think and be more aware of what we are paying for. The reader may be wondering “…why the hell does he care how individuals spend their hard earned cash!”. You are, of course, correct.

If people are willing to spend good money to assuage some ill-conceived desire for certain products or services, why should I care? It is just that I cannot help feeling a sense of injustice that such actions enrich the very people who do not “deserve” to be enriched. If we, as consumers, become collectively more discerning and begin to ask tougher questions of the products and services we consume, market forces will then do the rest and manufacturers and service providers will begin to act more responsibly and all consumers will benefit.

Moving on to corporations, despite the increasing sophistication of procurement systems, large corporations are also sometimes guilty of unnecessary expenditure and “buying” into image and branding. For example, as a manager looking to outsource some service, we may be more impressed and therefore more comfortable with a service provider ensconced in sophisticated premises or in a penthouse somewhere overlooking the sea. Did we spare a thought for how they were able to afford it in the first place? Well, with “generous” companies agreeing to “subsidise” their luxurious lifestyles, why not? I think we should not be deceived by pretty premises. Nevertheless I would also be the first to acknowledge that the fly-by-night operators give all of us that try to minimise our overheads a bad name.

With improvements in technology, many service providers today do not need fancy premises in which to work. In fact, some service providers only rent nice looking premises because they think that that is what YOU, their potential clients, expect.

Think about this for a minute. As a client, YOU are paying extra so that your suppliers look respectable and credible. YOU are paying for their upholstery and city view. How preposterous!? Not to mention that it is probably the height of folly to pay for a suppliers beautiful office and life of luxury. Of course, as mentioned above, there are some products and services that are value for money even at top dollar! The question is, which ones are they? I just wish everyone, from consumer to corporations, could be more discerning in their purchases.

Think about it the next time your supplier picks you up in his chauffeur driven car, takes you to his penthouse office overlooking the sea, before taking you to a sumptuous seafood dinner at his private club!

HR – Blame it on the Boss…

2005-01-01T13:23:00.000+08:00

As a HR Manager, how often have I heard the following refrain, “Tell my boss that…!”, “This course is more suited for my boss!”, “My boss is not helpful/ encouraging/ inspiring etc etc (circle whichever that applies)”. These statements come from all levels of staff.

When I talk to the officers, they frequently blame their bosses, the executives. When I talk to the execs, they will in turn blame their managers and when I talk to managers, they blame the senior managers. Amazingly, when I have talked to senior management, you would think it would stop there … but no… they blame their CEO!

It is sad that such behaviour is so endemic that it can be seen from the corporate executive to the man in the street. Where the executive blames the boss, the man in the street blames the government, the culture, their upbringing and what-have-you. When will people begin to take responsibility for their actions and begin to ask themselves what they have done (or not done) to contribute to prevailing circumstances or their own predicament?

In the corporate world, our bosses do have authority over us but in many of the “blame it on the boss” cases I have experienced, part (if not much) of the fault lies with the individual themselves. We should all be aware of the tremendous power which exists within ourselves to take charge of our destinies and change things for the better (do not mean to sound like Anthony Robbins!).

It is therefore no coincidence that many of the people who have shown a capacity for change, are adaptable and who have succeeded in their lives have also shown an ability to question how their actions have impacted outcomes.

Next time you attend a training course, seminar or workshop, listen carefully to your fellow participants. I am confident you will get someone who will point “upwards”. You may then like to point to them and ask them what they have you done about it... and look and the bewilderment in their eyes…

Pressing “Up” When Going Down (and vice-versa)

2004-12-27T22:50:00.000+08:00

I am sure many of us have experienced this.

We are in a rush. We need to get to the 24th floor. We step into an elevator (or lift), willing it to move fast to the 24th floor. Yes, there may be a few stops along the way for the others in the lift with you…. we can’t help that... We are fidgeting, looking up at the indicator wishing the lift would move faster, pressing the “close door” button as soon as someone steps out.

Lo and behold, the lift then stops at the 22nd floor but wait…, no one pressed the 22nd floor! The doors open and the chap outside says “…oh…its ok, I am going down”. In your heart you are thinking “its not #*%#ing ok!”. Why the dickens did you press the “up” button then!!? Of course, the lift eventually reaches the 24th floor and you go for your appointment slightly flustered as you consider another episode of inconsiderate behaviour.

Have you ever felt that? I certainly have. I have witnessed myself a fair number of times, people who routinely press both “up” & “down” buttons for the lift even if they know they are going in just the one direction. Why? It appears that there is this “belief” that the lift would arrive faster by doing this. Yes, perhaps they do believe that but such behaviour just shows that they could not be bothered about inconveniencing others in the lift which had to stop at their floor without reason.

Yes, yes, yes, I am aware that the 5 seconds this takes is not such a big deal in the larger scheme of things. But what really gets my knickers in a twist (yes, I do wear knickers sometimes) is that it just represents another case of inconsiderate behaviour. “I want the lift to get here faster.” “I couldn’t give a toss about the impact of what I do on those poor twits in the lift already.”

Well, all incidents that indicate a lack of consideration make me shake my head… but this is one that I encounter all too frequently so I thought I’d write about it…

Sigh, another instance where we consider the inconsiderate ….

HR - What's Wrong With Job Ads These Days

2004-12-19T01:51:00.000+08:00

There has recently been some discussion on the age for retirement and there have been comments that it really is not of much use if employers still discriminate based on age. Too true! Some job advertisements still specify an age range!

So what is with job ads these days? Well, by saying that, I am implying it was ok before. Actually, I am certain it was worse “in the good old days”. However, we certainly expect much more in this so called modern and enlightened age.

First, let me say that discrimination is essential in the recruitment process. In fact it is essential in all aspects of life! This simply means that we make decisions and choices all the time and in so doing, we discriminate one option over another. The key question is, what are our choices based on? When we choose food from a menu, we are discriminating based on taste (or what our wallet can afford). When we hand out increments, we are discriminating based on performance. I am quite certain that very few people would argue against discrimination based on performance. Of course, there will be those who question how we assess performance. Well, don’t get me started on that as that is a topic all in itself!

So, discrimination is essential. But is it ok to discriminate based on age, on race, on gender, on religion? Although many of us would shake our heads, I am also sure that many of us know it is happening. A lot of this may not happen overtly but in my opinion, it happens all the time, either inadvertently and subconsciously (at best) or consciously (at worst).

For example, if a company derives nearly all its customers from mainland China, it may well look for someone who speaks mandarin to run his customer service desk. The company may then specify being “Chinese” as a requirement when it actually means a person who speaks Chinese. Such employers are really not the ones we should be gunning for. The “serious offenders” are those that specify criteria that they “think” are important based on their own personal whims and fancies.

How about the level of information provided in today’s ads? Ads placed by the employer themselves tend to have information about the company overall and about the job function specifically. I believe this is good (and normal) practice so that potential applicants can then “self-select” and decide if that is the kind of company or role that they would be keen on taking up and hence decide on whether to apply. However, have you seen the number of ads placed these days where all you see are the job title and requirements? I personally find it arrogant and actually very insulting. The cheek! Employment is a two way contract where both parties contribute something to the equation. That’s why I think that companies that project the message “this is what we are looking for!” and could not give a damn about telling potential candidates about themselves or giving any info about the role, should simply be ignored!

Actually, I notice that many such ads are placed by recruitment agencies. Of course I am aware of the need to keep the identity of the employer confidential but not to the extent that candidates have not really got much clue what they are applying for. It really gives us in HR a bad name, not that we need to be kicked further down the hierarchy of importance!

C’mon, get with the programme! Give people some respect! Employers, do your job analyses and only specify requirements that you are confidently able to justify. Criteria that are essential for success in the company or the job. Agencies (and some employers), show us candidates some respect and treat us like educated adults (well most of us are anyway) and give us more info so we know what we are looking at and applying for. Potential applicants, make your voice heard! Speak up! (I do not think many employers are looking for timid mice… well, maybe some… which explains why many did not employ me… ha!) Ignore silly ads that do not give you enough info to make a wise choice. Unless of course you are desperate for a job and have many mouths to feed… I sympathise with you. Barring this, we should ignore inadequate ads. HR Managers, speak out against managers or line managers that wish to specify requirements that hold insufficient justification. Remember that you may be the last recourse standing between them and further hits to the integrity for the HR profession. Move us to next phase of development and enlightenment where we begin to treat people with respect and dignity and above all, professionalism!

To Chope or Not To Chope

2004-12-12T01:27:00.000+08:00

In food / hawker centres in Singapore, there is this practice of placing ones personal possessions, normally of nominal value, like a packet of tissue paper, on a seat or table to “reserve” that seat or table. The owner(s) then shop around for the type of food they feel like eating, queue up to purchase and finally, bring the food back to their “pre-reserved” seating.

In the various other countries I have been to in Asia, I have not seen this similar practice. Nevertheless, I think this “system” is actually highly inefficient. Think about it. In the time that it takes for these people to look around for what they want to eat, queue up and finally buy the food and return to the table, another customer could have gobbled up their food and be on their way. I for one have observed customers who have completed their entire meal and walked off while a lonely packet of tissue still awaits its owner to return with lunch. Therefore, at any particular time, there is a significant portion of seating places “empty” awaiting its “owners”. If one were to make a random survey of a crowded hawker centre during lunchtime on a weekday, I am confident you would spot about 30% of the places “unutilised” but actually reserved. Is this not inefficient?

If everyone were to refrain from “reserving” their places, utilisation rates of the seats in a hawker centre would approach 100% and people who purchase their food should be able to find a seat because there would be a fairly constant flow of people who would be completing their meal and leaving, especially since utilisation rates for seats were higher. This would of course only work in the larger centres that have a dynamic flow of crowds to ensure that at any one time, there will be people who are finishing their meals.

However, there are 2 major factors that will prevent this system from ever operating well here. Firstly, any system that tries to ensure a high level of efficiency is bound to be easily open to abuse. For example, let’s say we start adopting a culture prohibiting the “reservation” of tables. All it takes is one chap to start “reserving” a table to upset the entire system. The person who rebels against the norm would immediately gain an advantage, in the sense he need not worry about finding a suitable seating place and everyone else would also perceive he has gained an advantage and immediately start to emulate the rebel.

The second factor is of course, the “kiasu” syndrome where everyone would prefer to purchase their food with the confidence they have a place to sit. Especially since they are so used to the current system.

I despair when I see such inefficiencies which I really feel work against all of us. But what to do? In the absence of a new law which prohibits such “reservations”, I guess we will have to live with it. Or do we? What’s to stop me from rebelliously chucking aside that loathsome tissue paper and say with nonchalance “Is there a law saying you can reserve seating?” Of course, then again, I may get the crap beaten out of me… Anyway, I refuse to follow a system that I do not agree with and I have not had a problem so far… although I must say that I do tend to patronise less crowded areas and I do go alone… single seating is easier to obtain. Wonder if I will ever see a change in my lifetime… sigh!

HR - This Staff is Not Good!

2004-12-05T01:13:00.000+08:00

As a HR Manager, I was often approached by line Managers or Supervisors with the complaint that their staff were not performing up to expectations. Many times, there is justification for their complaints and the subordinate is truly having some performance issues. Nevertheless, I have often also found myself displeased with the exact same Supervisor who is complaining! This is mainly because, in many cases, the Supervisor has done little (or sometimes not a single thing) to try to address the problem.

Why is it so many of us do not ask ourselves, what we as supervisors have done (or not done) to contribute to the staff’s performance problem? As a supervisor, have I discussed my expectations with the staff from the beginning? Have I had one-to-one chats with the staff to advise what he/she was doing well, or not well. Have I discussed the relevant problem with the staff in a timely manner? If supervisors were honest with themselves, they will often notice that they have actually allowed many incidents to go “unnoticed” until the problem gets out of hand, at which point they will contact HR and ask for the staff to be “released” or transferred. We all need to find that happy medium between being too pedantic that you become the supervisor from hell, and having a laisser-faire or hands-off attitude until it is too late.

Many managers dislike handling the “people aspects” of their job. They focus on the technical stuff and leave the people issues alone, hoping it will sort itself out. Some hope that HR Dept will sort it out for them. (There is of course the other extreme where the manager thinks they know everything about people management and make a complete mess of everything. However, I prefer this extreme because, at least they get a chance to learn from their mistakes.) As a supervisor, we owe it to our staff to treat them with dignity and respect. As staff, we all want to know where we are doing well and where we are not. After all, we expect that from our own bosses / supervisors. Remember the Golden rule: “Do unto others….”

Unfortunately, in Singapore, the work environment is pro business and not pro labour (no, one does not necessarily follow the other). As such, employees are not offered much “protection” from unjustified dismissals. Employees who are unlucky enough to get a poor supervisor and a weak HR may well be shown the door even though they have no idea what they have done to offend the boss. Due process? What due process? It is not required here. Only the enlightened few, perhaps the MNCs which follow their world-wide corporate values will engage in due process prior to termination.

Having said the above, and having experienced labour issues in other countries, I must say that the Singapore way keeps business humming very nicely and helps increase productivity (since everyone is concerned about job security). Additionally, I also believe that many staff who are considered “poor performers” simply do not believe or are unable to understand why they are viewed as such. Yes, there are times where it is just a case of poor person-company fit or person-job fit. There are also times where the supervisor is not able to communicate clearly, the elements that constitute poor performance. But, having discounted all that, some (actually many) staff still cannot comprehend what they have done wrong. There is actually a study on this entitled “Unskilled and Unaware of It” (refer below*). I must admit that even I am at a loss sometimes when dealing with such individuals.
There was a time where, after much effort and discussion to show a staff where she had gone wrong, I simply had to conclude by stating that “…we appear to have a difference of opinion and perception and unfortunately, the Company’s position remains unchanged and your dismissal stands. I just hope you note our feedback for your future reference in case it is ever raised again. If the same sentiments are never raised in your career, perhaps you are just not a good fit with the environment here...”

Nevertheless, I do wish more companies would exercise due process in disciplinary cases (either misconduct or performance-related), even if it is not really required. Again, we need to treat people with dignity and respect and treat people as innocent till proven guilty.

I for one will seek to implement proper disciplinary processes within organisations that I consult for, in support of the principle of compassionate and responsible management. I have seen injustices committed for the sake of expediency and it really left a bitter taste in my mouth. I believe in a Responsible and Compassionate approach that preserves the dignity of the person whilst preserving commercial viability. I have full confidence that a viable (and indeed even thriving) business can be conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and I shall set out to prove it!

*Kruger J. & Dunning D. (1999) Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self Assessments, Journal Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 77, No. 6 Pg: 1121-1134.

Pride & Prejudice

2004-11-28T09:39:00.000+08:00

The following are my views on an article by Pranay Gupte entitled “Letter from Singapore" (http://www.pranaygupte.com/articles.php). I thought it was important to comment on it because it touches on issues like prejudice and speaking up which I hold dear.

I really enjoyed the article by Pranay because I thought he wrote with great magnanimity and objectivity even after what he had to go through (whether perceived or real). I also thought it was a well balanced article.

It is good that he detailed his experiences. On the one hand, I think it was unfortunate that he had to experience such attitudes in this nice country. But on the other hand, we will all agree that we will meet with these kinds of attitudes everywhere. As such, I am “grateful” that it has happened to someone like Pranay who is able to speak and inform others about it. I also happen to believe that he has done so in a very even-handed way. By raising awareness that such attitudes exist and perhaps, prevail in our society, we can hopefully begin to realise how we are behaving towards others and hopefully begin to change the way in which we relate with others.

I agree that "racist" is word that should never be employed lightly. But to me, it is just semantics and how you define the label. Many, if not all of us work with stereotypes and generalisations. It makes life easier and more convenient. It does however have the unfortunate effect of alienating and even offending others if we are not careful with the degree with which we use it.

I think that in Singapore, in addition to the normal generalisations, there is the “Zimbardo” effect at play amongst the citizenry. (This refers to the Psychologist P. Zimbardo, who showed in a classic study in 1971 how power, established by authority, negatively influences otherwise saner minds.) As the vast majority of Singaporeans are Chinese, they have a major say in the running of the country. Unfortunately, this position of authority (and power) may tend to give some people the attitude that other races are lesser mortals. In addition, the pre-eminence of Singapore’s position on the world stage is also a source of pride as to what the “Chinese” are capable of. Nevertheless, the days of Singapore being a British colony are not so far behind it such that the “whites” are still looked up to in our behaviour and attitudes, grudgingly or not. This general attitude then extends across borders and illustrates itself with the examples Pranay has given.

I have seen exactly the same thing across the border in Malaysia except that it is the Malay race that is in a position of authority and the “other races” who are lesser mortals. The slight difference there is that for the Malays, religion plays a larger part in their lives. As such, they tie their ancestry with their religion and are therefore more proud of their religion and heritage and are not so easily influenced by issues of pragmatism and economics. I believe this is why they are stronger in their “resistance” to “white” influence. The Singapore Chinese are more secular and pragmatic (yes, it is my turn to generalise!) and economic issues then take precedence.

Although many of us see this happening, we give the upper hand to the status quo by remaining silent. The few that are left who disagree with the attitude also remain silent feeling (I think rightfully) that they are in the minority. This is why I think it is good that Pranay has highlighted his experiences. If only more would follow his example, I believe it could well lead to the necessary changes in attitudes in our lifetime.

HR - Sorry, It's Confidential!

2004-11-21T20:54:00.000+08:00

How often have we asked people about something only to receive the terse reply that “I’m sorry but it’s confidential!”… assuming of course, they are polite enough to even apologise! I have heard it so many times in my life. In the business world, we often here it from the HR department. I find it sad, coming from the HR profession. I really think that on many occasions, the secrecy is unjustified.

Confidentiality like many other things, can be used for good and also, definitely for bad. The problem is that since what those in authority are keeping confidential is well… confidential, then how are we to figure out whether what these people are doing is justified. In most cases, it is just not possible. However, I do not think that being meek about all it will help. Despite the Chap upsatirs saying that the meek shall inherit the earth, our inheritance is probably still awhile away and in the meantime, we should stand up to all this shit that people throw at us and fully expecting us to lap it up! As a rule of thumb, I think we should always be bold enough to ask probing questions. Specifically we should ask something like, “It may be confidential but tell me why it is so?” Surely the reasons why something is confidential is not confidential as well! Puh-leeze!

The many times I have seen confidentiality used in an unjustified manner, I have been on the “inside” as it were. This is when I have seen confidentiality used as a shield to protect what could not be publicly justified with a good degree of confidence. Yes, there are issues in business (especially HR) that will always be sensitive and emotional and it may be naïve to think we will always be able to appeal to people’s good / common sense. As we should all be aware, common sense is not that common! However, we in Asia need to be more confident of our methods and our own people’s maturity. In more developed countries and societies, the general level of education is higher and people have a greater compunction to fight for their rights and question those in authority. It is time for us to get off our backsides and follow suit so that those in authority are more accountable to us, the people. In a business sense, those that are in a position to keep confidences ought to be accountable to the company and its shareholders.

In Asian politics we often here the refrain that our people / society are not ready for this, that and the other, mostly the so-called western concepts of transparency, liberal attitudes etc. To me, this is at best, over cautiousness by the powers that be and at worst, a ploy to safeguard the status quo (and subtly retain the reigns of power) for as long as possible.

I will be the first to concede that change, too fast, too soon, could be detrimental to all and sundry. Witness the events which caused the USSR to disintegrate. On the other hand, we can see how Deng Xiaoping’s cautious approach to capitalism has played a major part in making China what it is today. But I digress…

We in business, especially those of us in HR, need to loosen up! Engage the people (whom we in HR are supposed to be championing) in debate! Increase the level of transparency in our practices and decision making. If you really think that even a cautious opening up will cause anarchy, I seriously question your policies or practices in the first place! Yes, running a business may not be the same as running a democracy but we must never forget that we need our employees' buy-in and support to get things done. And dear employees, this is where we need to stand up and be counted!

We as humble employees or shareholders are also at fault. We do not hold our employers or companies sufficiently accountable for what they do. We are insufficiently assertive enough in our approach. And we blame companies for running roughshod over us! As a group, shareholders or employees have tremendous power. If we begin to vote with our feet, market forces will ensure that Companies pay attention to us. If many employees (i.e. a critical mass) are unhappy with a company’s policies, the company will have no choice but to change and reform.

Wake up and smell the flowers! HR is supposed to be championing us (amongst their other equally important strategic and administrative activities). They are not supposed to be keeping us in the dark. Its time to clean house and help them open the windows ever so slightly so that the sun may begin to shine through... So that fresh air can blow away the stuffiness that permeates many a HR dept. We may find a couple of skeletons here and there in the cupboards but really, its water under the bridge. We can be magnanimous. After all, I believe that it is in all in our interest and for our own good as employees! And if you don’t want to fight the status quo, then us all a favour and stop whining and go be an entrepreneur and follow what the “gahmen” has been asking people to do!

Towards A Systematic Approach to Finding a Mate

2004-11-14T01:22:00.000+08:00

Dating is often seen as an enjoyable time. A time where both genders meet up (assuming heterosexual unions) and pair off to see if they form a good “match” in terms of interests, values etc. The ultimate objective of this trial-and-error process is usually to identify someone with whom you would like to spend the rest of your life with (assuming you believe in the sanctity of marriage and it is for life etc…).

I am wondering whether, considering it is a decision that will impact our lives for life…, in the midst of all the fun and frolic, the movies and parties, the dinners and dancing…, are we treating the whole process with the seriousness it deserves? In fact, I am sure there are many who do not feel it needs to be taken all that seriously as it takes all the “fun” out of dating. I find it curious that we all take a job search seriously (well, perhaps not everyone) and we do not really even intend to stay with the employer for until we are 55! However, most of us treat the process with which we choose our life partner with barely any degree of planning, thought or seriousness. I am generalising of course, but that is the way I see it. If we truly believe in this marriage-for-life thing, ought we not approach the process in a more systematic (read: proper) way? Approaching something in a serious and systematic way does not necessarily remove the fun factor. Competitive sport is a serious matter but people still have fun doing it. You could also try having a look at a sex manual and the author will probably suggest that since we all lead busy lives, we need to make time and therefore “plan” for sex.

There is also the argument that marriage is about love, and love is not something that can be distilled into a “system”. Doing so would make the whole process of dating mechanical and the thought of “systematizing love” for want of a better phrase, is just unacceptable. It takes away the whole “spirit” of the process and objective. In summary, many people say that you can’t approach with the head, what is a matter for the heart.

In my opinion, those who voice these kinds of views believe the current hit and miss process has been going on for decades (if not centuries) and we have all lived with it, so why fix what does not appear to be broken.

I beg to differ and I believe this kind of thinking neglects and indeed is even perhaps wilfully blind to a host of issues that arise from the current process. What do we make of the misery of those who are “forced” by societal pressures to stay trapped within a loveless marriage. What about the increasing number of separations and of course, divorces that we are seeing today by people being freed by more liberal attitudes within society. What about the spousal and child abuse that goes on in some marriages? I am aware that there is a cultural shift happening towards views on the institution of marriage and this is partly causes the rise in the divorce rate. However, I also think that our current process of finding a mate is flawed and this leads to many mistakes which could have been avoided. I am advocating that we use more of our heads (not just our hearts) in determining who we partner for life. So, where do we start?

If we are looking for something, it is a reasonable assumption that we should have an idea of what we are looking for… or at least we have an idea of what we do not want. I think many people already stumble at the first hurdle. Many of us do not really go through a thorough self analysis and we therefore do not really know what we are looking for. I suggest we start by asking questions of ourselves.

What values do I hold dear? What do I think is important in a good, solid relationship? What am I looking for in a man/woman? What is my stand on the sensitive but critical issues of race, religion, money, family and children (how many, if any)? We can even extend the questions to touch on issues like educational level, social status/caste, views on bringing up children, role of in-laws etc. Which are the issues that we are “negotiable” on and which are “non-negotiable”? For example, we may want our potential spouse to share the same religion and this may be a “non-negotiable” item. So many questions and this may be just the tip of the iceberg but is any of this being asked at the dating stage? I doubt it.

I am well aware that if such “heavy” issues are raised at the first date, you may not be getting a second one! However my take is that these issues need to be raised and raised at an early stage of the dating game and not prior to a wedding and definitely not after!!

All of us should have an idea on where we stand on these very critical issues. Then our search will be more efficient. How can we search when we do not know what we are searching for?

Once we have “sorted ourselves out”, we can venture into the search process and begin parallel dating. We should essentially start meeting as many people as possible with the objective of “making friends”. This way, there is less expectations, a more informal atmosphere and we can then gather better info. The speed dating concept where a group of people meet up to 10(?) people on one night is interesting as it helps us cast a wider net in a shorter space of time.

In my view, there should be none of this “going steady” nonsense until very much later. The making friends approach allows one to truly date and meet many people simultaneously without giving in to exclusivity before it is warranted. When we meet others on a “friendly basis” we should, of course, be attempting to subtly find out if the person matches our criteria.

Yes, by all means have fun but I fear the fun factor or “chemistry” sometimes clouds out all judgement and we leave out the serious part (assessing the other person against our criteria) altogether, or until it is too late! Again, I am not suggesting we ask the other party how many children he/she wants to have on a first date! However, we should not be asking him/her on the wedding night either.

We really need to be mindful of our core purpose when we date. After all, we do not go for a job interview and not ask the company vital questions about the job and all it entails, correct? We ought to treat the dating game with equal seriousness if not more.

The small fly in the ointment is that we all do change over time and our needs and desires may change. Such things are not easy to forecast. However, if we were to place more effort in the initial part of our search and if we approach the whole process in a more responsible fashion, there is a greater possibility that we will be doing ourselves and our children a great service. As families form the building blocks of society, a more systematic approach may perhaps help us make better and wiser decisions that will ultimately impact us for the rest of our lives and perhaps build a more stable society for the future.

HR: Do Search Firms "Search"

2004-11-06T18:44:00.000+08:00

Some company's selection processes appear to be like a meaningless ritual. However, in the times that I have felt this, I have also felt that either the interviewer or the company culture, does not give the process the seriousness it deserves. If a company really believes that recruitment is an important process and adopts approaches which have been proven to be effective, the professionalism of the process and its proponents will show through and the results normally validates the means.

There are, of course, some who claim that they are able to tell a good candidate the minute he or she walks through the door! Yeah, right! Such selection methods (if you can call it that) simply pander to the hirer’s personal prejudices. Such hiring managers will then, many a time, make the best of his/her own decision, thus making the selection appear valid. In my opinion, such “gut feel” approaches have no place in professional set ups. It was the late scientist, Carl Sagan, who said (in response to a question on his “gut feel”) that he tries not to think with his gut. I share his sentiments! As humans, we need to retain our subjective judgements, but not till it becomes mere whim and fancy!

We need to "hedge our bets" and consider a multidimensional approach. In this way, one obtains more comprehensive info on a candidate with which to make a selection decision. But how many companies are willing to invest the money and time to adopt such approaches? Perhaps not until “the market” demands greater professionalism in HR approaches. Or perhaps not until we as humans begin to be aware of our own prejudices and adopt more scientific approaches into our recruitment repertoire. This is to ensure we blend a greater degree of objectivity, into our subjective judgement (which is just as important).

On the topic of investing in HR, I find it curious that companies choose to spend exorbitant amounts on so called “search” firms but do not invest in developing a proper selection process or training their recruiters in effective recruitment techniques. After all, shouldn’t a company’s own executives be in a better position to identify suitable candidates rather than a third party? If an agency’s role is simply to shortlist suitable people for a company to interview, is it worth the amount we pay such firms? At the very senior end of the spectrum (the so-called “C”-level hires) and for positions where relevant talent is scarce there is perhaps some true “search” taking place. And at the junior and temporary staffing levels, the charges are perhaps negligible. But how about the large bulk of executives and managers who fall in the middle of this spectrum? I disagree with the often quoted dictum that good performers will not be looking for jobs and they therefore need to be “sought” out.

People move from one company to another for a multitude of reasons. Many of them can be strong performers if they are placed in a position that matches their motivations. So, if at any time there are many people looking for a different career opportunity, do you really need a search firm to help you “search” for them. I cannot help but wonder if company’s who hire such firms are fully aware of their options. I also wonder if the increaseing number of serach firms are taking such companies for a ride and have tapped into a lucrative vein of ignorance and are feasting themselves on the results.

Companies generally, and HR Managers specifically, should reclaim what I feel is their rightful authority to have a major say in the whole recruitment process. Be careful of outsourcing (a large chunk of) the responsibility for identifying your supposedly “most important asset” to outsiders, and paying them good money for the privilege!

ALY