Choosing the best leaders...it takes guts

Today, various media sources reported on that Former Commissioner Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) Mr Peter Lim Sin Pang, and former Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) Mr Ng Boon Gay are currently assisting the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in its investigations into allegations of serious personal misconduct, with sources alluding that "money and women" were involved in the investigations.

It is CPIB's job to conduct investigations in order to maintain the highest form of integrity in the public services, as such, such investigations are not out of the ordinary. However, there are some things in this case that are worth noting:


a) News released on 2nd day of Lunar New Year

The timing of the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) press release and confirmation is certainly worth taking note of, since it was done on a major public holiday. Why the need to confirm this news now when the investigations had already been in progress for about two to three weeks? Perhaps, it might be the government trying to send a strong message that such cases have zero tolerance. However, my view is that news of this investigation was leaked out to the media and the government had to hastily respond to the leak.


b) Uncanny timing - just after parliament debated on ministerial pay

It is rather uncanny that news of this case surfaced just a week after parliament debated on the issue of ministerial pay. The ruling party (PAP) has put forward its rationale that a good salary is needed to dissuade corruption among the government elite. News of the ongoing investigations is certainly going to shake the ruling party's prevailing argument and provide the opposition with a perceived upper hand on this issue.


c) Both are reported to be former Public Service Commission (PSC) Scholars

It is no secret that the Singapore Government prides itself in its Administrative Service elite where scholars are earmarked early in life for key positions in the government and government linked companies. Based on imperial China's philosophy of the selection of bureaucratic Mandarins, candidates are put through rigourous tests and observation sessions. Their career paths are carefully planned and progress keenly tracked . Observers will raised questions on whether the PSC needs to review its selection process.


People have started to speculate that where 'there is smoke, there will be fire'. Before anyone casts the first stone, let us try not to speculate on the results, for they are innocent until proven guilty.

Being a leader in today's world is no trifle matter. Even more so if you are in the public eye. I have been informed by a reliable source that one of the incumbent ministers is so busy with his portfolio that he has opted to give certain grassroots events a miss.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

On the topic of what we can do to sift out the best people for leadership, I have some thoughts to share:


i) Choose those who do not love money

A former business associate related to me that since the creation of the casinos, they have decided to run background checks on their current and potential customers to see if they are gambling addicts. Their concern is that their addiction to gambling will lead them to embezzle company funds, and an inability to pay their business partners.

Leaders are only as good as how they manage their weaknesses. However, if one has a natural love for money, we have a problem. Don't get me wrong - I am all for paying a man his worth in salt. However, there is a fundamental difference in choosing a job because it pays well versus choosing a certain job because it happens to pay well. The bigwigs at Enron and Tyco were paid obscene amounts of money - and look at what happened? They still embezzled, they still cheated.

Good leaders are those who do not love money.


ii) Test values, not aptitudes

One of things I have been pushing for, is the need to test for values and not aptitude. Aptitude tests like the MBTI, Big 5, DISC and so on, are good - but only to a certain extent. The onus is on the candidate to be honest. Additionally, choosing a 'correct' answer on the test does not show the tester why that answer was chosen. Testing of values is not an easy task. It takes time, resources an skillful assessors. And the biggest elephant in the room - it is hard to quantify it.

An example of testing values would be throwing a group of potential candidates into an unplanned and perhaps mentally strenuous activity that seeks to throw them off guard, thereby exposing each candidates strengths and weaknesses. My personal favourite options might be sending candidates on kayaking or mountain hiking trip that will allow the assessors to discover the candidates' true colours.

Another method is to make candidates feel completely at ease during say, a cocktail session. A friend of mine deliberately cozies up to candidates and throws at them a few drinks before slipping them certain questions to test their views. They are surrounded by numerous assessors (very sober ones) who keenly observe the candidates' body language and responses. You might be surprised at how easy it is to set someone's tongue loose with a couple of martinis.


iii) Past achievements does not equate to future success

This current world we live in is obsessed with the need to quantify everything that cannot be quantified - purely because of accountability and marketing issues. As such, a person's past track record is regarded as the best predictor of future success. To some extent, this can be true. But what I advocate is finding out if one has failed before and how this person has overcome that failure. I am sometimes rather apprehensive when faced with a candidate that has a perfect track record. Life is never linear. If life has been good to you so far, and if you faced your first failure while working for me, wouldn't I be collateral damage? That would be a risky proposition indeed. However, if you have faced challenges in life, been trampled upon and despised, but against all odds you were able to make good, I will certainly take a closer look at this person. Alas, it will be tough for organizations to accept such people, for the Human Resources manager has to be held answerable to the higher ups on such a decision. In our risk averse society, charity has no place when your job is on the line.


The answers are easy, but the execution is cumbersome. Organizations whose leaders have the guts and gumption to make a concerted effort to find the best leaders, will find them.

image from smexcellence.com.au

I like his style...

"I've thought about that. But what I've thought more about, because Mitch McConnell put it out there, is offering to match the total amount of voluntary contributions made by all Republican members of Congress. And I will. I will go 1 for 1 with any Republican. And I'll go 3 for 1 with McConnell...and I'm not worried."

Warren Buffett in response to whether he will consider writing a cheque for what he thinks his taxes should have been. Buffett had earlier pushed for higher taxes on the rich, which made Republican Mitch McConnell comment that if Buffett felt guilty, he should "just send in a cheque". Warren Buffett is worth US$45 billion, but gives away 99% of his fortune.

A most valuable skill

"The most valuable skill anyone can learn in college is how to learn efficiently - how to figure out what you don't know and build on what you do know to adapt to new situations and new problems."

Virgina Postrel

"The purpose of my position of influence was surely to speak up for those who have no influence."

Dr Susan Lim

Is there hope for Generation Y?

Having breakfast with a former MBA classmate at a local coffee shop, we caught up over our runny eggs and nonya laksa, he broached topic of Generation Y.

Boy, did he talk to the right person.

Not that I am the definitive authority on this topic, but that this is something close to my heart both in academic research and in practice.

'There is no hope for this generation!', he gesticulated emphatically. Mind you, he is a soft spoken person who hardly ever loses his temper. Yet, he more than flinched as we spoke.

I consistently get this reaction from those who are aged 35 and above, and have a role in managing or hiring post-1980 babies.

Then again, we have to see the other side of the spectrum.

My students, aged between 17 to 24, often put it to me that those who are not of their generation are 'backward' and 'not keeping up with the times'. The common trait that is mentioned is 'slow'.

And thus, you, as the reader, will realise that for post-1980 babies, speed is not an option --- it is an expectation.

This seems to mirror a study commissioned by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices in Singapore. It was found that younger interviewers favoured younger candidates over mature candidates. Once the interview panel consisted of mature and young interviewers, mature candidates had a 12% higher chance of being hired (Straits Times, 4 Nov 2011).

And so, on the one hand, experienced workers perceive that younger workers easily crumble under pressure and in the words of our country's founding father, 'footloose'. They are seen to be easily demoralised yet, highly confident of themselves and their abilities. 'Spoilt' is a word that is often brought up in my conversations with experienced workers.

On the other hand, the young ones see experienced workers as dated employees who simply stick to the status quo to safeguard their rice bowl. 'Uncreative and difficult to change', the young ones see mature workers as a liability rather than an asset. If they had it their way, they would like to populate their organization with Wii-playing, Crumpler toting, Rihanna listening peers.

People do not realise that both mature and younger workers want the same things in life --- financial stability, friendship, useful life experiences and time for themselves. Now, how each generational cohort seeks to achieve these things, is very different.

higher-faster-sports.com

I am against ageism --- the discrimination of those who are older in age; and reverse ageism --- the discrimination of of those who are young. It is unfortunate that in the Confucian paternalistic society that we belong to, it is the young who are at a disadvantage. However, the tide is turning and society is realising that they have to put aside their perceptions and bias to embrace their younger managers.

It will not be easy for Generation Y to become the established individuals they so want to be --- definitely not by next month. Many will suffer pain and some will crash dramatically and even take their own lives. But there will be those who will give the passage of time its place and bounce back to stand out amongst the others.

Both experienced and younger workers need to suspend their biases against each cohort. They need each other. The experiences of the Baby Boomers are valuable and can help guard against major mistakes in life. Younger workers bring lots of ideas and knowledge to the table, that can be very useful in improving the lives of Baby Boomers at work.


Concluding his argument against Generation Y, my friend declared, "I do not see any hope for this generation."

I paused for a while, and with a wink of my eye, I proposed, "I have hope for them."

Marketers, business people, listen to Bono...

"Some people say, 'Come on, markets are not about morals, they are about profits,'. I say that is old thinking. That's a false choice.

The great companies will be the ones that find a way to have and hold on to their values while chasing their profits, and brand value will converge to create a new business model that unites commerce and compassion. The heart and the wallet.

The great companies this century will be sharp to success and at the same time sensitive to the idea that you can't measure the true success of a company on a spreadsheet."

Bono

Did or did Lee Kuan Yew not use the 'V' word on Islam?

image from wikileaks.org

Singapore's former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has come out against a Wikileaks cable that alleges he "characterizes Islam as a venomous religion".

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2005/07/05SINGAPORE2073.html

The following is a press statement released by Mdm Yeong Yoon Ying, Press Secretary to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on behalf of Mr Lee, 5 Sept 2011

"Wikileaks released a cable by the US Embassy in Singapore reporting on the visit of Senator Hillary Clinton to Singapore in Jul 2005. The cable claimed that in my meeting with Senator Clinton, I had “characterized Islam as a ‘venomous religion’”.

This is false. I looked up MFA’s filenote of the meeting. Nowhere does it record me describing Islam as “venomous”, nor did I say anything which could have given that impression.

I did talk about extremist terrorists like the Jemaah Islamiyah group, and the jihadist preachers who brainwashed them. They are implacable in wanting to put down all who do not agree with them. So their Islam is a perverted version, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Singapore do not subscribe to.

I also pointed out that our Muslim leaders are rational, and that the ultimate solution to extremist terrorism was to give moderate Muslims the courage to stand up and speak out against radicals who have hijacked Islam to recruit volunteers for their violent ends."


I would like to summarily explore the reactions of the immediate stakeholders to this situation and present my views on this issue.

We have Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Ms Hilary Clinton and Representative Charles Rangel who met to discuss various issues during the visit to Singapore in July 2005.

We also have the foreign office representatives from both the USA and Singapore who were present to take notes during the discussion

Finally, we have former Ambassador Frank Lavin who signed off the confidential cable.

In light of this incident, we might begin to see finger pointing at who purportedly said what and interpreted inaccurately.

Lee's clarification today has now thrown the ball into the American's court. They will shortly have to respond whether they agree with Lee or whether they stick to their guns. I foresee an interesting exchange between Clinton, Rangel and Lavin on what their response should be.

To cut the long story short, this cable was meant to be confidential and not made available for public viewing. It would be in the Americans' interest to respond by saying that they are not against Islam and that this was a misinterpretation on Ambassador Lavin's part, thus making him the fall guy.

But the question still remains - did Lee use the 'V' word or allude to it during their conversation?

Many would argue that since Lee recently commented in his book "Lee Kuan Yew: Hard truths to keep Singapore going" that the Malay-Muslim community is 'distinct and separate', where there is smoke, there has to be fire - and so Lee would have to be anti-Islam.

I was not privy to the conversation between Lee, Clinton and Rangel, buy my very uneducated gut feel says that Lee did not do such a thing.

Why not?

Too much to lose
Having built Singapore from nothing to a first world nation, it would be terribly uncharacteristic of Lee to speak against something he feels strongly for - racial and religious harmony. Singapore is surrounded by countries that have Islam as their state religion. It would not be in Lee's interest to make the alleged statement.

Walls have ears
In diplomatic circles (so I am aware), despite 'so-called' confidential 'off-the-record' conversations, people know that what they say can (or do not say) can come biting them in the behind. Home Team officers are trained to guard against saying more than they should during contact with their foreign counterparts.

To avoid being leveraged against by the Americans
If Lee did make such a statement, the Americans could easily use it to instigate neighbouring Islamic countries against Singapore and thus pressure Singapore to gain concessions for future negotiations. While it is in the Americans' interest to support Singapore in the region, the Americans have a close working relationship with Malaysia and Indonesia. Both are moderate Islamic countries and work intimately with the Americans in the fight against terrorism. One might think that such a situation is far fetched. To this, I say that one must not be naive. Such, can be the dark side of global politics.


I have worked for a Muslim boss, with Muslim colleagues, managed Muslim staff and taught Muslim students. I have had pleasant experiences working with them and some of my Muslim students are the brightest in their cohort.

I also do not believe that Lee used the 'V' word or alluded to it in the context of Islam.

As the reader, you have a right to disagree with my opinions and conclusions. However, one thing we must agree on is that we do not condemn any religion, especially those observed by Singaporeans.