Got Social Resume?

Courtesy of: Online Colleges   

A turn off...in too many ways

Picking up today's 90 cents newspaper on a Sunday, a half page ad on the Life page caught my attention...for the wrong reasons.

The ad was sponsored by the Social Development Network (SDN), the matchmaking agency of the state under the Ministry of Social and Family Development. 

Within 2 seconds of seeing the ad, I cringed.

I immediately noticed a few issues:


1) Poor communication
The headline was "You can be The Right One" with the content from an article reproduced from another piece of literature. While the content was adapted from a book, the context of the article needs to be seen in its entirety. To have the content plonked in to fit the headline (or vice-versa) is advertising suicide.

I hate to add salt to the wound, but there was also no 'call to action'. Ok, so I know I need to achieve these 8 characteristics. I am hopeless in the game of love and I need help...so whom do I contact? There were no contact details or references to a website for further resources that one could use.

Pity, pity.


2) 8 characteristics to be the right one
With such a headline, it literally demotivates someone who is seeking a life partner. Must I possess these 8 steps before I am the 'Right One'?

I think I will pass...


3) Thou hath fallen short
Such an article unfortunately gives people the impression that if the other party does not possess these 8 characteristics, he/she is NOT the right one. *Ouch*




I did a quick check on the SDN website and noticed a couple of things - SDN does not have a Facebook page (gasp! horrors!) and SDN's office is located at *Scape, next to Orchard Cineleisure. Let me explain why having the office at *Scape is not such a good idea.

Statistics in recent time have shown that a Singaporean's desire to be married is highest between the ages of 18 to 25, or in other words, during tertiary studies. For the lady, if she remains single after tertiary education, her desire to search for a mate tapers off and drastically drops once she hits 30. For the guys, a huge reason to delay (to after their 30s) finding a mate was for the purpose of furthering one's career. And so the age group of people who need the most help will be those between 25 to 35.

So why place your office at *Scape, where teenagers and young adults in their early 20s hang out? Cheap rental I presume.

Perhaps, a better place might be in the downtown financial district area, Jurong/Tuas or MacPherson (yes, technical and blue collared workers are looking for love too). I am sure it is not too difficult to obtain information on where 25 to 35 year olds work in Singapore. It is essential to be where the action (or lack of action) is.

Lest anyone call me a naysayer, I am actually a huge advocate of people finding their soul mates. I got married rather early after meeting my wife while studying overseas. It wasn't my plan to marry early, but since I found the right one, better sign, seal and deliver first. These days, 'Chope' also not enough yah?

Lest anyone say that I am an arm chair critic, I have been encouraging (and nudging) singles and dating couples for years. Ladies and Gentlemen --- it is not easy, really! (sorry, 8 characteristics are not enough either)

And lest anyone say that I have not been trying to do something about what has been called today by Minister Ng Eng Hen as one of the 3 vital issues Singapore is facing (getting Singaporeans to marry and have kids), I actually applied for a job with the then MCYS to encourage people to get into marriage and stay married. I was even shortlisted to be among the final 3 candidates.

I got rejected.

= (

SDN is trying, I am sure they are. They could certainly do with more resources. I do hope for the government to place the same amount of importance in this area as they do in national security.

So, what do I think?

I believe that for people to get together, only one thing is needful --- Love.

Duh! So the sum of my whole rant is about Love? A little lame, you might suggest?

Not so.

"Love (agape - the highest form of love, sacrificial love) is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7 (NAS Bible).

As I often say to others, it starts from your philosophy - what do you believe? If you believe that to be the right one is a hopeless cause for you, then your actions will never lead you to improvement. However, if you believe that Love is where you begin with, you will start to see things very differently and it will govern all that you do.

Learn to love, and I assure you that you will be loved.

Confessions...what is a leader to do?

Image from www.worshipmediahouse.com

What is a leader to do?

Product life cycles have shorten dramatically across a host of products. With globalization and technological advances, barriers-to-entry have also lowered and increased competition in the market. Customers have become more demanding and discerning for services that require near feats of superhuman effort at rock bottom prices. It certainly is not easy being a leader, especially if you are higher up in the hierarchy.

And now, with organizational leaders struggling to understand the basics of social media and its impact, we have now a potentially challenging issue to deal with - Facebook Confessions.

The idea of a Facebook Confessions page is a simple but powerful one - share your deepest darkest secrets from within your organization with almost complete anonymity, reaching potentially everyone with access to a Facebook account.

This is how it works - say you have something to get off your chest about your organization. It happens that someone or some people from within your organization have started a Confessions page. These people managing the page are called administrators. They maintain a consistent cloak of anonymity - good for them, good for you. You send them an anonymous message to an online form at a given website (which can be easily created by google docs or any free survey portal like survey monkey); or simply send a private Facebook message to the administrator (less privacy here since they can see your profile). The administrator then posts your comments on the Confessions page.   

Administrators will try and post as many comments online as possible. Most administrators might practice some self-censorship on certain inflammatory posts, but by and large, the majority of comments get through without the need for verification of authenticity.

Highly popular in the UK and the US among high school and university students, this is a new online phenomenon that is only a few of months old. However, it has also seen some pages being shut down in the US due to racial and sexually explicit content.

Confessions pages has now made its way to Singapore have not only sprouted up for schools, but also for the Singapore Armed Forces and the ruling political party. 

As a leader of any organization, such a page can be highly damaging for organization morale and its reputation in the eyes of the public. Even worse, such comments could potentially have been simply fabricated for the purpose of a personal vendetta against a person or the organization.

What should the organizational leadership approach be to the Confessions page phenomenon?  

Preventive
a) What is your organization's whistle blowing policy?
People write comments on Confessions pages generally to vent their frustrations (sense of helplessness or emotionally affected); see others' reactions to their comments (attention seeking); or to genuinely want change to take place (Voicing to see change - the 'V' of EVLN model).

If there is an avenue for members to speak out against any wrong doing in the organization with the guaranteed cloak of secrecy to prevent backlash, it will certainly dissuade many from commenting on a Confessions page. When people within the organization know that the whistle blowing mechanism is effective in addressing issues, trust will be in the system and not in the Confessions pages.

b) Managing change
Whenever change is introduced, people are likely to be unhappy, even though the change may be in all fairness, a change for the better. When change is managed badly or (worst still) not managed at all, members end up being disgruntled. As a former Brand Manager in the FMCG industry (fast moving consumer goods), I have always advocated getting Marketing folks to assist in crafting out a change strategy for HR. Since they are the folks who help influence customers to buy your organization's products or services, they can be very effective in helping influence and win minds in a major organizational change. 

c) Don't use the stick...yet
Despite your best efforts, some members will inadvertently comment on a Confessions page. It is not wise to internally post a memo to this effect,

"Please be reminded that all members are strictly forbidden from writing on XYZ Confessions page. Members caught will be severely dealt with".

Rather, see this as an opportunity to further refine your outreach efforts to those who have not bought-in to the organization's efforts to help solve their problems. A better message might sound like this,

"We sense your frustration as you have mentioned on the XYZ Confessions page and would like to reach out and assist you in this matter. We have helped many people solve their frustrations through the whistle blowing channel. Give us the opportunity to help you. Anyone who would like our assistance can contact us at Tel: 1234567....."


Defensive
a) When it hits the fan
According to social business intelligence provider CIC and Ogilvy PR China, a response within 8 hours of the situation is ideal. If not, the next best response time is within 24 hours. Crisis duration and negative influence will be greatly diminished according to their  report “2012 Crisis Management in the Microblog Era - 17 January 2013”.

Assuming a comment on a Confessions page that was created by people within your organization has gone viral and public. It is threatening your stock price and organization's reputation.

The first thing to do is to release a statement to inform the public and media that your organization is investigating the situation and then promise a follow up. Ideally, you should verify the online comments and release the facts within 24 hours. Organizations would do well not to forget about internal communications with your members and keep them up to speed on the situation. The best front an organization under fire can have is a united front where all members are of one mind, which makes it that much harder for the media to obtain a negative quote from an organizational member.     

b) Crisis management - people are emotional beings
While it is important for organizational leaders to verify the truth of the matter, it is more important that the public and organizational members be informed about the verification process and its results (via press releases or the official organization microblog).

Planning the execution of message delivery to the public and to organizational members is so vital, I cannot emphasize it enough. Even if the rumour was unsubstantiated, too harshly delivered and you are seen as heartless. Too soft and you could be seen as displaying poor leadership skills.

This principle has always helped me: 'Speak from your heart, to the heart'.

c) Penny wise pound foolish
If a situation potentially is spiralling fast and way out of control to be handled internally, the leadership needs to call in the experts. And while it may set the organization back by some thousands of dollars, this money is worth spending. Never underestimate the influencing power of social media.


After all said and done, the best plans and execution will come to nothing if the leader chooses to be less than transparent and show a lack of moral courage and determination to resolve the issue. Hiding the dirt under the rug is the attractive short term solution. But don't be surprised if one of your members starts confessing on a Confessions page - the dirty linen that could be airing may just be yours. 


Paul Lim is an adjunct faculty member with the Organizational Behaviour & Human Resources (OBHR) discipline at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University. He teaches courses in Leadership, Organizational Behaviour and Cross Generational Management. A doctoral candidate with French business school - Grenoble Ecole de Management, he is currently into the final phase of writing his thesis on 'Mentoring for the millennial (Gen Y) generation'. Prior to his move into academia, Paul spent 9 years in Advertisting and Brand Management.This article is based on the writer's personal opinion and is not representative of any organisation or persons he may be associated with.

Let common sense prevail

Those who know me, know that I choose to remain politically neutral so that I can maintain the credibility to comment across political lines. This is especially useful since I am often asked to comment on the actions of the various political parties. I can do this in an objective way as I am loyal to no one party. I choose to be loyal only to specific leaders and not political parties. One would know by now that blind loyalty to a party is foolish - both good and bad leaders make up any one party.

But the time has come for me to take a stand on some issues that have been affecting our society. The following is a speech made in parliament on 5th Feb 2013 and is reproduced from his facebook page. Mr Inderjit Singh belongs to the ruling People's Action Party. But he has broken party discipline to speak out against front-benchers. 

Many of the issues resonate with me. Some I know to be true from first hand experience. Others, because people I have met confirmed it from their own experiences.

Something to consider - Mr Singh is one of the MPs of Ang Mo Kio GRC, where Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also happens to be an MP. This is certainly an interesting point to note and will lead to much speculation - Did he speak on his own accord? Is this a strategic move to prove that there is no groupthink in the ruling party? Or is he a pawn in a larger grand strategy to transmit a message from the general?  

Finally, this post does not represent the views of the organizations I am associated with. The purpose of this post is to provoke discussion by asking ourselves tough questions and to push for common sense to prevail.  

 


Speech by Mr Inderjit Singh, 
MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC
 On the White Paper on Population
Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the White Paper on Population.

While the report has some compelling arguments for the 6.9m population figure projected, we all know it is based mainly on economic considerations. Had we focused on things like building a cohesive nation with a strong national identity, the outcome would likely be very different.
I feel the time has come for us to find a better balance between economic growth and social cohesion and yes there will have to be tradeoffs of economic growth but I would rather trade some of these for a cohesive, united nation where people feel taken care of at home and are confident of their future. I am not saying we go for low or no growth. Instead I am willing to adjust my growth expectations for a more comfortable life for all Singaporeans. I am confident we will still be able to pursue respectable economic growth when companies and Singaporeans are faced with a situation of tightened labour availability by focusing on improving ourselves through productivity and higher value capabilities. Finland and other small nations have done, we can do it too.
Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we take the next step. I call on the government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home. So I call for a breather in this quest of growing the population and focus on improving the lives of Singaporeans and achieve that promised Swiss Standard of living for most Singaporeans first before we plan our next growth trajectory.
Taking Care of the Singaporean Core
I have a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens we are planning to add to our population. I don’t see the necessity to be as aggressive when the key consideration of the population growth is the economy. We have already added too many new citizens and PRs and need time for integration and social cohesion to happen. Looking at history, our population grew from around 2.4m in 1980 to 3m in 1990 and then to 4m in 2000, reaching 5.3m last year. Just looking at the resident population alone, we grew the numbers from 2.3m in 1980 to 2.7m in 1990, 3.3m in the year 2000 and then to 3.8m last year. So in the last decade we added more than 1m to the resident population, and the in last 25 years, which is close to 1 generation of Singaporeans, we have added another close to 50% more to our resident population. I believe this must be the fastest rate of population growth in the world and I feel this is just too much for us to comfortably go back and build a national identity and social cohesion which was progressing very well till the 1990s. Adding another 500,000 to 800,000 more PRs and citizens as proposed by the white paper will be disastrous and add to our already difficult infrastructure and social problems.
If it is economic growth we want then let’s just adopt the Dubai model of a transient workforce which will give us a lot more flexibility to manage numbers in the longer term. On PRs, today we already have too many of them and they are enjoying full citizen privileges without the citizens’ responsibilities. For example;

• Far too many PR boys who skip NS when they turn 18. After enjoying the privileges they have a choice of not doing NS and then leave the country. I believe only around 30% of all PR boys do NS today. Well, our Singapore sons don’t have a choice but to do NS, it is an office(sic) not to do it.
• PR children study at their International system schools sticking to their home cultures.
• PRs can buy HDB flats from the open market driving prices of HDB flats too high.

So I urge the government to reduce the number of projected new PRs and citizens just to the population replacement levels and be more selective and differentiate their privileges from citizens. I have a few suggestions for the government to consider;
• The government in the past couple of years has tried to draw the distinction between PRs and citizens by increasing school fees and healthcare fees for them. But I wonder would it not have been better to instead partially subsidize these same fees for Singapore citizens? So do it the other way round, reduce fees for Singaporeans not just increase for PRs.
• PR children must be made do national service – it should no longer be a choice and we should make it an offence if they don’t do it. We should not grant PRs to families who don’t commit their sons to National Service.
• HDB – if a PR buys a HDB flat from the open market, charge a levy of say $50k and allow them to sell only to Singaporeans. If the PR takes up citizenship within 5 years, we can refund the levy.
• Children of PRs should be made to study in our national schools so that we increase the chance of integrating them at the next generation.
• On the employment front, it is time we implement a Singaporean first hiring policy like what is done in some developed countries like Canada. Companies should show proof first that they were not able to fill a position with a Singaporean before they are allowed to hire a foreigner.
• Reconsider the dependents policy – I have come across a number of cases where our targeted one child from China brings in 2 parents who then bring 2 parents each as their dependents – Net is that we gain one young one child who we brought in for our future but also inherited 6 older people – making our ageing population issue worse not better.
I feel the differentiated privileges will separate the genuine ones from those who are here for a ride. We should grant PRs to those who are most likely going to take up citizenships so these differentiated privileges should not stifle our plans to attract quality PRs and new citizens.
This brings me to the point of how many Singaporeans are feeling about the presence of such huge numbers of new citizens, PRs and foreigners amongst our midst. First for housing – there is no doubt that the influx of foreigners in Singapore has driven up our property prices. PRs are buying HDB flats from the open market which drives up prices.
Just last week I had a dialogue session with my private estates residents and one of my residents complained that a new citizens recently bought a landed property in this old estate and was building a 3 and a half storey towering house. Well the, new citizen, the owner of the house was also present and when, I spoke with him during the tea session I found out that he was a new citizen formerly from China, just gained his citizenship and bought not 1 but 3 landed properties in Kebun Baru alone. I was surprised and saddened because many Singaporeans cannot afford to do the same, and this new citizen, no matter how he may have made his wealth is able to do so.
Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce feel demoralized because many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans. I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years I could afford a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns $2600, just $700 more than what I earned when I started. The mathematics is very simple, the cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum the last 27 years and even more, the cost of owning a HDB flat is did not just go up by 37% since 1985.
Finally, I am perturbed by the banquet analogy used by Minister Khaw. We are talking about lives of Singaporeans. Our banquet guests come for one night and leave when the function is over. There is no turning back when we grant PR and citizenships. We must be more exact about the numbers we want to add to the Singapore population and not plan on a basis of ‘hoping we hit some number”. Because if overdo things and end up with a population of more than 7m, it may be too late to stop the fast moving train of population growth when we fire up all the engines of growing the population. We missed the mark the last 10 years, and are already paying a high price for that mistake.
In my speech in this house in 2008 during the committee of supply debate on the population I urged the government to abandon the “the instant tree mentality” in trying to grow the population in response to the declining birth rates. At that time, I did not agree with the rate of growth pursued and we know the consequences and the hardship Singaporeans faced as a result of the rapid growth, Instant trees cannot grow strong roots and can be uprooted in difficult times. I once again urge the government to slow down and plan on reaching their population target over a longer time horizon. I don’t think we can live with a 6.9m population in 2030. We may be able to handle it in 2050, no one really knows. Please abandon this ‘instant tree” mentality as we cannot afford to make Singaporeans lives more difficult as a result. I rather we err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for planning misjudgements.
In conclusion, I would like to see us take a breather from re-growing our population again. We have too many problems as a result of the last breath taking population growth rate. As a government we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us and that we are willing take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems, make their lives more comfortable, give them a better quality of life and show them that any future growth of population will not create similar social and cost of living problems. At this stage many Singaporeans from all walks of life don’t have the confidence that we can handle another steep growth of the population, so let’s not push it. I would like all of us, including the government to spend the time creating and environment that gives us confidence in our future and one where our young can see a sense of hope of opportunity and if we fail to instil a sense of hope and opportunity for our future generations, we will not be able to root them here and build a strong national identity and a strong nation. This is what building a strong Singapore core should entail. So let’s delay all plans for further population growth for now.