Show me the Talents!

The Missing Link – Talent Management for tomorrow

erickywong — Mon, 23 May 2011 15:25:05 +0000

Being a sports fan, I often watch with interest the level of intensity of debates in who the team hires. I believe in the sporting industry, we call it “transfer”, or “trades”.

As HR practitioners, most of us are strong believer that it is the “Talents” that drive a company forward. However, I believe no other industries take this as seriously as the sporting industry.

We can easily find examples in any one of those rich European football clubs where transfer fees goes into tens of millions of pounds (Sterling). When Cristiano Ronaldo moved from Manchester United to Real Madrid in 2009, 80 million pound was paid in transfer fees. That is a lot of money! I sure know what I could do with that for a staffing budget!

Whilst many would not link the transfer system in the sporting industry to how we run staffing in a business organization, there is still a number of parallel comparisons we can draw and perhaps learn from.

No, I’m not suggesting that we should pay exorbitant transfer fees, or sell one of our talents to our competitors! Come to think about it, maybe that’s how staffing can become a profit center! Hmmm, what a thought!

Hiring in any industry is both a risky and potentially costly business. Often when the hire goes wrong, the downstream implications is disastrous. Moreover, “proven” talents come with impressive price tags. Did you know that Christiano was signed by Manchester United from Sporting Lisbon for just 12.24 million pounds? This is truly an impressive return on investments!

However, there are many horror stories in the sporting arena where expensive talents fail to integrate and deliver on the promise for performance. Thus cost may not always guarantee performance.

A shrew recruiter (or manager) is able to pick out the diamonds in the rough. This can be a competitive edge in recruitment over the competitors.

A basic staffing model is relatively easy to deploy as recruiters and hiring manager will try to look out for the best candidate in the market for their staffing requirements.

It is easy to identify performing talents. In sports, the stats are tracked meticulously by various media. In the business world, there are KPIs which we look for. For example, when interviewing a seasoned sales person, we look at the size his sales numbers and year to year growth. A naive recruiter can probably tell you, “This guy should be good. Just look at the size of his paycheck!”.

Thus, if everyone has one of those standard vanilla staffing department in place, staffing will have to work harder, smarter to differentiate and create the competitive edge.

On another hand, recognizing and working with an unfinished product is something else. It takes an experience recruiter (or manager) to access a different set of criteria, and hire for the potential.

Let’s now look at the youth program in the sporting industry. This, in my opinion is a world-class University/ Collage recruitment model.

The amount of investments in time, infrastructure and resources that being put into identifying potential talents before they join the workforce is amazing. In the US, talent scouts from the major sporting leagues such as the NFL and NBA spends an enormous amount of time and effort trying to get access to “hidden” resources on the next batches of sporting graduates.

We can argue that unlike the real business world, in sports, the young athletes are doing what they were supposed to be doing when they grow up. A basketball player plays basketball when he’s in collage, than enters the draft, joins a NBA team. A football player plays football, than draft, than joins a NFL team. Thus, the assessment and selection criteria are simple – if they play well in collage, naturally they should do well when they graduate.

Isn’t it about time that we put that kind scouting framework in our corporate environment?

Today’s “Staffing” operates in a relatively a silo, transactional manner. At an operational level, this is essential as it ties back to an organization’s “ramp” or “capacity” plan. The business volume will proportionally drive the recruitment numbers.

“Staffing” will need to evolve into a more holistic “Talent Management” model. – I know what you’re thinking of. “Talent Management” is not new!

Look at all those sexy “Talent Management” programs out there. They are either too “Training and Development” centric, “University/ Collage Relations” centric, “Succession” centric, “Recruitment” Centric, or even in one instance – “Organizational Development” centric.

In my humble opinion (IMHO – *Wink*), I felt that “Talent Management” should be simple. We over-complicate things.

Common in every company is a 3 stage (Buy-Make-Sell) model. Talent is acquired, developed and …?

Exactly my point!

A lot of focus had been placed in the first 2 stages. There are a thousand and one best practices out there on how to acquire and develop talent. However, what’s missing is the ability to track and manage talents out and back to the organization.

Let’s just say that we’ve got our front end hiring and development strategy right. We hired the talents with the right potential, trained and developed them well. Rotated them around the organization a little and that kept them happy for most part of their career.

What happens next? We will inevitably come to a stage where good (not the best) talents are due for promotion, but are face with stiff internal competition. Logic dictates that we can’t promote them all (unless if the company that you’re working for is grown at an exponential rate!). We will lose good people along the way. What’s more, we’ll lose them to our competitors (especially the smaller ones) who would gladly give them that position they so wanted.

Here’s the missing piece of the puzzle.

Have any manager ever tried incorporating external opportunities into an employee’s annual review? We talk about career and developmental plan all the time. Sometime it’s come to a stage where it becomes a “lip service” where “if someone works hard enough, he/she will get there… eventually”.

Think about the impact it would create if an actual development plan consisting of internal-external-internal progress is put in place for an employee.

This way, the employee not only sees the value of work he/ she is producing and how it correlates to increasing his/ her future value. The employee would also feel that the company has a genuine intent to develop and groom him/ her. To the point where the employee knows what he/ she has to do (or the knowledge/ skills to acquire) when leaving and rejoining the company.

I know this is a controversial step, but we have to admit that employees will not stay with us forever. The earlier we face that reality, and put together a (no BS, no nonsense) plan which is a win-win for company and employees, the sooner we can tighten our talent management strategy.

What this gives us is access to strong alumni who will continue to maintain close ties with the company for mutual benefits.

The approach is different, and in my opinion, this is the missing link to making the any talent strategy click.

Singapore’s widening income gap – From an employment perspective

erickywong — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:45:25 +0000

I was tuning in to the radio (938Live) on my way to work, and there was this discussion hosted by Keith De Souza and Bharati Jagdish on the problem with Singapore’s widening income gap.

Hearing the comments from our fellow Singaporeans (I assume they are), it leaves me wondering if we’ve missed the elephant in the room.

All of us (in Singapore) had benefited from the ambitious, aggressive and spectacular progress of Post-Independence Singapore. And “Yes”. I do mean all of us – the citizens, permanent residents and foreign talents.

Just think of the numerous amounts of employment opportunities that are available in this tiny island nation. Think about the speed of recovery that got us out of the recent economic crisis. Compare that with the other developed nations. We should be smiling.

Accept it – A “dollar” yesterday is not equal to a “dollar” today and will never be the same as a “dollar” tomorrow. Ten years ago, 1 US Dollar will get you 1.7917 Singapore Dollar. And today’s exchange rate? (1 US Dollar – 1.293 Singapore Dollar) **

What about our unemployment rate? – 2.1% in Sept 2010.

What’s the real problem?

Are we seriously complaining about the cost competitiveness of the foreign workforce? A few of the comments were centric around the low wage structure which these workers are brought in to Singapore on. Seriously?

Remember not too long ago. In the early 80s. We used to be competitive. Our wage structure was low and that presented a strong value proposition to the foreign investors in bringing their business to Singapore. We became a strong manufacturing hub.

As we progress, our cost structure increased, causing a certain amount of manufacturing capacity being transferred to lower cost regions. Such as Malaysia, Thailand and China. We probably can remember that we used to have a large number of PCB board and Hard Disk manufacturers. Where are they now?

We’ve changed ourselves to adapt. Moving up the value chain, we focused on high tech manufacturing. In came the Semiconductor, Pharmaceutical, and Solar industries. At an industry level, that’s skills upgrading!

There are many jobs with low skills requirements we see today that employs a large number of foreign workers. Are we really saying that they’re taking work away from us?

How many of us can put our hands up and say “I want that job!”?

Ask the HR managers of companies in the construction, shipping, retail, F&B and hospitality industry – “How difficult is it for them to hire?”

Remember – 2.1% unemployment rate! – Are there that many locals to hire from in the first place?

Alright. Let’s just say that we have enough unemployed local workforce to fill ALL those positions. Are we seriously willing to work at those wages?

Ok. We have the unions and there are talks about “minimum wage structure”.

Let’s revisit the point on overall national competitiveness. Are we prepared to lose more jobs to our more cost competitive neighbors? Think about it. If the cost of port services goes up, the cost of manufacturing goes up, and etc etc. How long do you think it would take for the foreign companies to start spreading their eggs in other baskets?

The majority of us had been too focused on cost. Singapore’s value proposition is in its complete package – Well regulated business environment, political stability, developed infrastructure, efficient banking facilities etc.

What we really need to do is to look at how we as individuals can develop and move into the jobs that contribute at a higher value chain. When an entire nation functions in that model, we will be able to progress with time and improve our earning in that process.

Lastly, there will always be the less privileged group who will struggle to cope with the effects of low income. Let us tackle those issues separately. When the majority of the workforce is pushing themselves up the value chain, the number of people falling into that less privileged group will naturally decrease, thus more focused attention can be placed to helping those truly in need.

**Ref
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_of_historical_exchange_rates_to_the_USD
- http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=1.00&From=USD&To=SGD (Exchange rate for 05.01.2011)

My search for Shangri-La; Employee Retention – Simplified

erickywong — Sun, 02 May 2010 16:42:56 +0000

In a 1933 novel, “Lost Horizon” by British author, James Hilton, “Shangri-La” is being portrait as a mystical and harmonious valley; an earthly paradise; a Himalayan utopia; and a permanently happy land.

The story center around the character, Hugh Conway, a veteran member of the British diplomatic service, who finds inner peace, love, and a sense of purpose in Shangri-La, whose inhabitants enjoy unheard-of longevity.

I like the part about the “longevity”, the inner peace, love and sense of purpose. Isn’t that such a romantic idea?

We spend about 9 hours a day working. Ok, who are we trying to kid? We all know that we work more than 9 hours a day, and some would even point out the weekends.

In a week, there’s 168 hours. Let’s just assume that we’re put in about 50 hours of work a week and we clock a healthy 56 hours of sleep a week. That would mean we spend about 44.6% of our conscious life at work!

If we are going to be spending a third of our life on an activity such as work, shouldn’t we do doing something that we love, or at least on something that we don’t hate?

There is a corny old saying that goes, “If you love your work, you will never work a day in your life”!

Right! That makes sense. However, how many of us can put our hands up today with the conviction that we have the same undying passion and commitment as the first day we step into the organization?

I bet many of us can’t even remember what happened on that very first day of work!

Where is the love?

Let’s make another assumption that most of us are in a job that we like somewhat. However, we would argue that the fundamental reason that kept us going is the need to earn our keep. We have our expanses to upkeep, our lifestyle to maintain and our wife’s Gucci to purchase.

And “YES”, the “Gucci” is important! (Else, I wouldn’t be able to write this article at this hour!)

There are many theories about “Employee Retention” with many of them centric around bosses, salary, benefits, development, culture, and more.

We often over complicate things by reading too much into the many different factors that holds an employee to an organization.

To me, I would loosely categorize the factors into the 3 “S”s.

1) Suitability, 2) Stability and 3) Sanity

The “Suitability” refers to the fit of the job. Every one of us is equipped with a unique combination of skills and abilities, allowing us to take on different jobs with vary degree of proficiency. Thus, the ability to gauge how suited our abilities are to a given job is important in determining the suitability of the job, which in turn result in performance.

The need for “Stability” exists inside every one of us. Regardless of the amount of self confidence and self worth that we have for ourselves, no one like to be in a situation where you feel threat or fear.

Drawing a parallel, asylum seekers leave their war-torn countries for survival, an employee would do the same if the fundamental reason (the need to earn their upkeep) for them working in your organization is shaken.

Last but not least, the “Sanity” of doing your job. If you’re in environment that drives you crazy, I don’t think you’ll last very long.

In the military, combat psychologists are being assigned to frontline units to help troopers cope with the combat stress. This brings out the best in the units’ performance. The same goes for sports psychologists who help athletes cope with the pressure and expectations.

The state of mind of an employee in his/ her role within an organization is critical and has a direct correlation in his/ her performance level.

Maybe it’s not that extreme as in combat or sports, but I’m sure there are instances that you’ve encountered difficult colleagues or bosses, people who drives you nuts. Coupled with the unrealistic expectations and workload, I’m sure anyone of us will feel the stress and pressure.

Given time, left untreated, the cracks will appear and soon we’ll give way. Early signs includes grumbling and complaining about one’s job, with more severe symptoms such like workplace violence or quitting.

Just do a search on “Workplace violence” and you’ll be amazed by the amount of articles you can find.

Thus, a job that doesn’t test the limits of your mental sanity is important.

For me, I believe the retention of an employee goes pass factors such as salary, development, promotion and such. More work and emphasis should be put into understanding the motivations of your workforce.

Everyone has a different yardstick and motivation for sticking around. It is the ability to put together that unique combination of factors that creates that Shangri-la workplace.

Only than, we’ll start seeing longevity in the workforce and employees will start seeing a purposeful career with the organization.

With this, I’ll leave you with a thought; “Have you found your Shangri-la?”

Eric Wong

Ps. I dedicate this article to a good friend and colleague, Sam. I hope you find your “Shangri-la” soon, and Happy Birthday.

The Mathematics of Human Resource – The Anorexic Organization

erickywong — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:00:35 +0000

I work in a manufacturing plant. I’ve been working in the manufacturing environment for the last 7 years.

In the manufacturing environment, there is a fundamental concept of “capacity”.

I’m not a guru in this field, but what I find interesting is that:

1) the output is directly proportional to the input

2) the throughput is somewhat a constant, unless:

2.a) the line is setup differently, resulting in a more optimized setting, or

2.b) there is an increase in equipment/ station, which increases the capacity

3) last but not least, if a production line has a 1000 units output, than 2 production lines would have a 2000 units output

What a simple concept. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out. I thought I knew this when I was in primary school! I was made to write lines for not doing my homework. I had to write 500 lines of “you know what”. If I can do 2 lines a minute, that would take me 250 minutes to complete. That is a whopping 4 hours of writing!

I figured that if I want to catch my favorite cartoon on the TV, I would either have to:

1) Write faster, or

2) Get my brother to help

In the end, I got to watch my cartoon and I’m sure you knew what I did.

That’s the basic, that’s Manufacturing 101.

Let’s move one to Advanced Manufacturing 201.

In a manufacturing line, it is essential to have periodic “preemptive maintenance” (PM). This is to ensure that the line is calibrated and the constants are maintained. Or rather, to ensure that there is no mistakes. We also know that equipment has a certain tolerance level, by which would require servicing.

How could we not know that? Even the car we drive needs an oil change. Ok, I’m guilty of squeezing another 20% more mileage before sending my car in for servicing. But, the fact remains. The servicing is essential.

We also know that the wear and tear for our “high-performance” and “highly-utilized” parts is generally higher which requires more frequent servicing. For example, a car which has run more miles daily would require a servicing at shorter intervals, and a turbo engine breaks down easier than a normal engine.

Hold that thought.

Now, let’s take a look at how organizations plan their human resources. I’m not taking about how the HR team is setup. I’m referring to how organizations setup its department and the people in these departments.

It is safe to assume that with the technology advancement we’ve seen in these 2 decades, the pace and volume of work had increased many fold. The expectations of the employees had increased accordingly.

I was just talking to a someone who’s been putting in many nights’ of work and his complain was that he’s been made to work at 120% of his capacity from the day he joined the organization. And recently, he’s been working much harder as there’s an urgent project he’s been put in charged of.

He’s burned out.

He felt that in the real world, the volume of work can never be at a constant level, there should be a high period and a low one. However, why can’t he be operating at 80% for most of the time and 120% at the high period?

Maybe he’s not that hardworking, and he deserved to be replaced. Maybe.

Have we gone over board with cost cutting measures as such that it really cuts to the bone? Try losing weight to the point that you become anorexic. I bet it isn’t fun. Not to mention that it is not very healthy.

Fat helps regulate body temperature, store energy, and cushion and insulate organs.

According to an article from Medscape.com, the American Dietetic Association recommends that men have 15-18% body fat and women have 20-25% body fat. Healthy male athletes might be as low as 5-12% body fat, and healthy female athletes could be as low as 10-20%.

With that in mind, shouldn’t an organization stop being anorexic and start putting on some healthy fats?

Where are the “PM”s and where are the “servicing”? Have we gone from preventive maintenance and servicing to just replacing?

Last I checked, “Size 0” is so passé.

By Eric Wong – 22 Apr 2010

Strategic Talent Management

erickywong — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:22:04 +0000

Three big words. Put them together, and you’ve got a topic for an article. I’ve always taken a simple approach to management theories. Call a “spade” a “spade”.

Try talking to the HR practitioners in today’s market and you’ll find that the term “Talent Management” is grossly misunderstood and misused.

In some organizations, we often find the Talent Management function focusing mainly on Training and Development. Maybe a little pinch of succession. Perhaps a bit of recruitment.

In other organizations, we would probably find an over-elaborated version of the “Buy-Make-Sell” model. Ok, let me clarify. “Source-Acquire-Develop-Retain”.

Is “Talent Management” really that complicated?

We often hear comments like “It’s a Talent War out there”, “Talents are scarce”. Take a step back, if they’re aplenty, than the bar would have gone up! Albert Einstein’s law of relativity at play here.

So, let’s just call “Training” “Training” and “Recruitment” “Recruitment”. Moving on.

“Talent Management” should be about the business, not the organizational structure. We are talking about “people” here. The beauty is in the uniqueness of the individual, not the conformance in entirety.

If you need to hire and “stock-up” a team of employees to perform a set of operations, just go out there to recruit. You don’t need to fill these vacancies with the Einstein-s of the world.

We acknowledge that the business paradigm changes and if the business’s ability to maneuver this new environment is paramount to its survival. To put it simply, “changing slower than what’s changed is regression and changing faster than what’s changed is progression”.

This means, we need the creative, innovative, thinking, and maybe crazy “talents” to add the unknown “X” factor into the equation. If you get it right, you lead the pack. If you get it wrong, file for Chapter 11.

So, what exactly is “Talent Management”?

Well, it’s the Management of Talents!

Ok, I’m sure you did not read this much for me to tell you that.

Talent Management should be about the strategic deployment of “Special Talented Individuals” within or outside the organization to maximize the chance of creating a winning formula for success.

In simple, proper English, the following must be observed:

1) A good understanding of the business and its directions. (You read it correctly. It’s directions with an “s”. How many times have you seen organizations change its focus and directions? Shouldn’t the Talent Manager be aware of the different potential directions?)

2) Knowledge of which function and role matters.

3) Ability to visualize the impact of the different type of “Talents” under different circumstances.

4) Know who matters in the organization and who matters outside the organization

5) Build a strong network of talents within and outside the organization. (Talent-Pool is a thing of the past.)

6) Track. You can’t own the world. Let your competitors train, develop and maintain your talents. Why can’t we apply the J.I.T (Just-in-time) concept in Human Resource?

7) Understand that a career path can be “In the company” – “Out of the company” – “Back into the company” – “Out again” – “Back in again”. We all know that it’s healthier to have a “wider gene pool”, so why are we making it so hard for employees to return? We should even plan and facilitate employee’s move out of the organization for him/her to further his/her development in a different environment before returning.

Basically, “Track”, “Track” and “Track”. There’s always a time and place for a deployment to achieve best results.

You need to hire when you need to hire. The key is: “Knowing where that Talent is will win you the race”.

Good Night everyone.

Cheers
Eric Wong.

Is it time for a HR paradigm shift?

erickywong — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:32:41 +0000

I’ve always wanted to write something about the life expectancy of a normal career. However, as I was penning my thoughts for this article, my mind wondered and looking at it again, I felt that it is a part of a larger problem.

As a recruiter, we often had to deal with the preference for candidates with a reasonable potential to grow or progress.

Most of my clients do value experience and those with a “preference for age” do come with a genuine reason for wanting to put them on a management training program. These are the ones with a real career progression plan which outline the candidate’s progression with the company over the next 5 to 10 years with the company.

However, we cannot deny that there is still a large community of employers who would value youth over experience.

During the recent economic woes, I came across a large pool of candidates whom had just lost their jobs. My heart goes out to these candidates, especially so for those middle-aged candidates who felt that they are “stuck”.

How can we blame them for feeling stuck? They had been doing what they do best for as long as they had been out of school. A good example would be the large number of “displaced” workers from the electronics manufacturing industry. Especially so for the candidates from semiconductor and hard-disk sectors.

These industries had seen the boom in the last 5 to 10 years, resulting in a large pool of skilled workforce. However, with a drastic drop in demands, companies are forced to make harsh decisions to layoff.

I’m sure many of us would agree. There are industries that are sill hiring. The oil & gas industry is one. Niche industries which previously had problems attracting candidates are still hiring.

Yes, they had gone a little conservative in the numbers, but the headcount requirements are still there!

Going head on with the “fresh grads” may not be an ideal situation for the middle-age job seekers. After all, the fresh grads cost less and learn faster.

From the assumption that “youth equals energy and youth equals creativity” to “the ease of managing the expectations of a younger workforce (ie. Lower wage structure)”.

Let’s not forget, for every energetic youngster out there, I am sure you’ll find a lethargic one somewhere. For every creative thinker we come across, there will be a wise teacher to be found.

Letting “free economics” do its thing. Isn’t the free market supposed to determine the “market rate” for wages?

There are 2 schools of thoughts here.

1) If you fluctuate wages “freely”, you will face with excessive fluidity in workforce movement

2) If you maintain wages (aka market/ internal equity) and not fluctuate it according to external business demands, we would have what we have today!

a. High wage structure in times of downturn – resulting in retrenchment and overloading of remaining workforce with core duties (as a result of reduced workforce)

b. Inflexibility in cross industry workforce redeployment – many mid-level candidates wouldn’t mind to start with a pay cut in a new industry to be retrained. However, our high basic wage structure and low variable component in our current C&B model made it impossible for such move to take place without the candidate taking a huge pay cut!

There are variable factors in play here.

The way we structure our C&B.
The way we design our jobs.
The way we assess and hire.
Our assumptions on candidates’ age.
The way we train our employees
The list goes on.

Is it time we look at HR differently? Is it time for that paradigm shift?

Eric Wong

29 Jan 2009

Where have all the retail superstars gone?

erickywong — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:38:19 +0000

For the last couple of day, having to burn some time at the retail stores, I made an interesting observation.

A large part of our retail workforce comprises of very “fresh” inexperienced personnels.

This may had been the effects of having a lower entry requirement, coupled with the fact that the salami-like profit margin.

Are excellent retail experience only limited to luxury brands?

A close friend of mine had a retail store selling some fashion accessories and stuff. It wasn’t something that’s got a huge margin. It was a small time business with a monthly revenue of just about 30 to 40 thousand.

Having to hire someone to be put in charge of that particular store, my friend decided to go with a young, energetic and innovative chap. The decision was made for a very different reason, but it did pay off. She practically picked the cheapest of the lot.

He cost about 20% cheaper than the rest of the applicants!

However, it was a right decision. He was different. Having no previous experience, he practically tried numerous “interesting”concepts and the revenue improved by 40%.

The first thing this chap did was to connect with his customers. It helps that he had a chatty personality. He practically asked his customers for their preference, and the contact info. In no time, he had a small database of customers and their likes/ dislikes.

This allowed him to place varied the orders according to his customer’s preference. In that first few months, he’s successfully dropped a couple of ill performing products and added a range of new ones.

Further to that, his free time were filled with informing customers of new stock and arrivals via the phone.

To top it off, his customers liked him. They thought of him as a friend and enjoyed chatting and catching up with him.

The story didn’t end well. He’s left for a much better job, and eventually moved out of the retail industry. The revenue growth wasn’t sustainable as the replacement wasn’t like him. She was an experience cashier, but that’s all there was to it. Eventually, my friend closed down her shop.

For every successful retail business, we do need smart chap like him. Not one that just tend the store. However, we often find ourself not willing to pay to retain such talents!

Or, is it because that the retail assistance ranks at the bottom of the food chain? Thus, they were never important or critical to the business?

Either way, this chap did made a difference to the business. It wasn’t a great deal of money that he’s made. But from an operational and business performance point of view, he’s world-class. Immense amount of potential to be groomed as a very strong retail manager. But the retail industry lost him.

I believe that the retail industry is a challenging one. Not only does it face a talent drain issue with talented people choosing other industry over the retail business. Also in its justification of putting someone really good at the job, which in turn will cost more.

So, my question to you today is – Where have all the retail superstars gone?

Ps. Do drop me the contacts for any retail superstars you’ve came across and let’s see how many we can identify!

Cheers
Eric Wong

In the trench with your men. Leadership – military style!

erickywong — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 04:59:01 +0000

In a recent discussion on the making of a leader, I realized that as HR practitioners, we seemed to have taken on a rather textbook approach on defining leadership.

Let’s go back to basics.

I practice a rather straight-forward and simple form of leadership. It’s called “Will you shoot me from behind?”

Here’s how it came about.

Many years ago, I had to fulfill my national service by serving in the military service. During my basic training, we had a very nasty Sergeant (He’s our Section Leader). Let’s call him Sergeant John.

Being in the Infantry unit, we had to fulfill all sort of “in-humane” training programs. Or rather, it kind of seemed “in-humane” back than.

However, being Sergeant John, being our section leader, had never seemed to be a part of “team” and is often seen baking down at us and pushing us to the limits.

(Yes, I know that this is part of the training, and looking back, I can see the rationale of doing do. However, please read on)

During one of the exercises, one of my section-mate made a comment. “If this is a real war, I’ll shoot Sergeant John first before the enemy”

It was a rather extreme statement, but in all its simplicity, it simply means that, our section leader didn’t command our respect.

Over the course of the next few months, I graduated from training school, earned my strips and had men reporting in to me.

Being a part of the section of infantrymen, we had to spend time training together. Over time, the bond grew stronger.

In a very simple way, I realized that true leadership is not rocket science. It’s about having an aligned objective with your subordinates. It’s about being there and working as a single unit. It’s about the bond and togetherness.

As individuals in an infantry section, we realized that there are times where individuals puts in a little extra for their own team mate. It’s all a part of being a single unit.

I lead my men with a very simple motto. “With one heart”. I guess for me, leadership is simple. It’s about unity and alignment, keeping your subordinates together and aligned.

On one occasion, after a military exercise, I asked my men the question. “In war, will you shoot me from behind”

The men laughed. I guess I had my answer.

Cheers
Eric Wong

Where have all the leaders gone?

erickywong — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:39:23 +0000

I know that there had been a long standing debate on the difference between a manager and a leader, and I don’t dispute that managerial and leadership qualities are mutually exclusive.

Most importantly, in the ideal world, we should have a leader who can manage.

The world is not ideal. So, let’s face it. Will the real leader, please stand up!

I remember a long time ago, when we were kids. Whenever we get together to play, there is always that “someone” who calls the shot. “I get to be this and you’ll have to do that”. No, I’m not referring to playground bullying. I’m referring to leadership qualities in its simplest form.

Where had that gone to?

Today, we put people in leadership positions for various different reasons. In fact, various wrong reasons. For one, seniority is the biggest culprit. Next on the list would be the person’s performance in his current role.

When can we get this right? The role of a leader is…

“To lead”

Does he have to be the oldest serving employee in the department? No.
Does he have to have the best sales performance in the team? It would be good to have, but still “No”.
Does he have to be the best marketing genius or the shrewdest accountant? That’ll be nice, but still “No”.

So, who is this person that can lead us?

He needs to be someone who understands the business, the environment, the industry, its competition, the trends and everything from where the revenue will come from to where the expenses are going to.

He has to be a strong business person with a shrewd acumen for business. He has to see change before others. He must have the guts to go where no one has been before, to take the uncharted route. To be a pace setter.

In all that, we have someone who’ll stand in from of all others, points in a single direction, and tell the rest, “That’s where we are going”.

In that, he must be able to pull the people around him to march towards that direction with one heart.

And very importantly, listen to its people and command their respect.

That is a leader.

What about managing the resources? The logistics, costs of operations and many other little little details of getting there?

That’s what the managers are for! Right?

By the way, isn’t the leader supposed to rally those people around him as well.

Let’s start to put the right people on the right job.

Cheers
Eric Wong

When “a dollar there” is no different from “a dollar here”

erickywong — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:28:48 +0000

I am not addressing the economic crisis, nor am I trying to define the value of a dollar.

A few years ago, as an in-house HR business partner, I was conducting an exit interview with a line technician (Let’s call him Simon). I’ve known Simon for about a year or so, and we’ve had lunch on several occasions.

In that interview, Simon was very truthful and straightforward in his answers and I was somewhat brought back to reality on the importance of a good manager and a warm friendly environment.

Simon brings home about a thousand dollars every month. Considering that he’s had a new born baby, I know that he’s been putting in extra overtime hours whenever possible. He is a smart and diligent individual and was given extra responsibilities in his area of work.

However, I knew that he wasn’t getting along well with his department head (Let’s call him John). Not that he’s having any direct confrontation with John or anything. It’s just the environment that was created by John. He practically micromanages every single detail.

John is not an easy going person as well. At times, talking to him can be rather intimidating. Simon doesn’t report to him directly. In fact, there are two other persons in between Simon and John. An engineer that Simon reports to, and a manager that the engineer reports to.

In the exit interview, Simon shared with me his plans. The company that he’s going to is much smaller in size and the salary’s about 20% lower. The overtime may be good, but it’s due to the fact that they’re running a sweatshop. On the whole, Simon will be putting more hours for pretty much the same pay.

How does all this equate to a better opportunity? I am not convinced by the fact that he’s taking a pay cut to join a smaller company and he’s feeling good about it.

He refers to his career move to being released from prison, saying that “a dollar earned there” is the same as “a dollar earned here. I put in the hours and I get my pay at the end of the month. The difference? I don’t have to put up with all this!”

I was sad to see him go. The last I checked, he’s still at that smaller company. He’s a much happier person now. He’s gotten his promotion and had been rewarded with a slightly better package.

I guess we all know that the environment is important, and most people quit on their managers and such. But it will be a while more before we can put all this knowledge into practice. There is no silver bullet to creating a superb working environment, but what I do know is – “A happy employee is a productive employee”.

Cheers

Eric Wong