"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present." So say Oogway (or the Wise Turtle) in Kung Fu Panda.
One of our associates just gave me a 'gift' recently (Thank you, Jacq!). At work, we have always subscribed to the concept that everyone is a leader. And by our definition of a 'leader', we mean to say that anyone who is able to influence our thoughts, decisions, actions, or words is a leader. Provided that the influence is done with integrity, and of course in the context of our work, be aligned to our mission.
Her idea of the 'gift' is that, leadership may be quite daunting for some. As she works with youth, some challenged (or being inappropriately labelled), it is easy to see why she proposed 'gift' rather than 'leadership'. The thinking goes like this, we are endowed with different 'gifts'. Of course over the course of our lives, there may be moments that feeling gifted or a leader is the last thing on our minds. As a result, in her work with youth, she's coaching them to discover or re-surface the gifts that these youth have but may have some how 'lost' it.
We totally agree on that point. At the same time, we would also like to bring together several concepts by other scholars and practitioners to amalgamate the concepts and decipher it into practical steps that we all can use.
Now, the concept of the 'gift', is aligned to the Hedgehog Concept presented by Jim Collins, where interest alone is not enough. For instance, you hear people talking about, if you do what you love, the money will follow. Well, this is only part of the story. As you'll recall our previous discussion on having but just one strategy? Doing what you love alone may be good, but good is the enemy of great!
Hence, we must find that something which not only we are interested or feel passionate about, but we must also be good at it. Which means, while it is aligned to your interest (positive emotions well up when you do something you love), it must also be something that you are good at, almost naturally (technical competence). Of course the sweet spot is where the above-mentioned two criteria fit with the third, which is it must be something that people will pay you to do.
The full story reveals itself when you look at not only these three components, but when you bring in the fourth. Those of us who are familiar with Covey's work, will recall Habit 7: Sharpening the Saw. You see, in Habit 7, we look at the physical, mental, emotional, and spirit.
Drawing the parallel between Covey and Collins is as follows. What you are passionate about = emotional; genetically encoded = mental; what others will pay you for what you do = physical. Hence, using this parallel Covey has one additional and in fact, an extremely important component, which is "spirit".
This is where your conscience lies, where the sense of rectitude surface. Where it allows us to discover what might it be that will get us to do 'the right thing'. And when you find it, this is your 'gift', the 'gift' that once opened, will give you the strength to step up and lead with moral authority. So, my friends, what might your 'gift' be?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
3 Questions
I need your help with 3 questions:
1) What is the most important thing to do?
2) When is the best time to do it?
3) Who is the most important person in the world?
1) What is the most important thing to do?
2) When is the best time to do it?
3) Who is the most important person in the world?
Part III
For those us who have children, you might be interested in the following example, set in an educational context.
Let's say little Johnny has been taught a new and effective way to learn certain content he was taught in school. However, because little Johnny has been so used to 'memorizing' the content, rather than 'understanding' the content and let's just say that 'memorizing' has served him well in the past in terms of test scores.
Now, given that he's been so used to (path of least resistance) 'memorizing' and that this technique has brought about good results (positive emotions due to parents' acknowledgements or his class mates now look up to him); what are the chances little Johnny will take up this new and effective technique?
Well, certain things must happen. For a start, this new technique ought to be more fun and exciting (positive emotions). It must allow him to do even better during tests (better outcome which reinforce the positive emotions). It must give him more confidence (further reinforcement of the positive emotions). Besides, it must be 'easy' to apply or else he'll go with the path of least resistance and fall back to the old style (if in doubt, try brushing your teeth from this moment on using your other hand - meaning if you've always used your right hand, now use your left - unless of course you are ambidextrous, then it would be easy). And unless parental support is there to help little Johnny adopts this new method, it is very likely he will revert to his previously known technique, where he is comfortable, good at, and even brings about good results.
So, as one can see from the above, there are a whole host of factors that need to be in place to help the child learn better. And besides, bearing in mind that as Maslow said, "he that is good with the hammer tends to think everything is a nail". Hence, anyone who's been in the corporate world these days would readily recognise that we'll need more than one strategy to succeed, or in my words, to win. We simply cannot rely on just one strategy that might have worked well in the past to continue to perform just as well.
To paraphrase Einstein, to tackle new level of challenges, we'd need a different level of thinking. Put it differently, with the current level of thinking, we cannot hope to solve a more challenging level of problem. So, to get little Johnny to adopt the 'new' technique would require so many factors to be in placed, can you imagine the multitude of factors that must be in place for us, adults, to adopt a 'new' strategy?
Of course, this is further complicated by the structure of the systems in which we operate in (supporting environment), the number of times (or even years or decades) that using the 'old' technique had brought about good or even promising results (experience), how that made us feel about ourselves or how others saw, felt, or thought about us (positive emotions), and of course how we have become 'programmed' to think or execute in a particular manner (path of least resistance).
Let's say little Johnny has been taught a new and effective way to learn certain content he was taught in school. However, because little Johnny has been so used to 'memorizing' the content, rather than 'understanding' the content and let's just say that 'memorizing' has served him well in the past in terms of test scores.
Now, given that he's been so used to (path of least resistance) 'memorizing' and that this technique has brought about good results (positive emotions due to parents' acknowledgements or his class mates now look up to him); what are the chances little Johnny will take up this new and effective technique?
Well, certain things must happen. For a start, this new technique ought to be more fun and exciting (positive emotions). It must allow him to do even better during tests (better outcome which reinforce the positive emotions). It must give him more confidence (further reinforcement of the positive emotions). Besides, it must be 'easy' to apply or else he'll go with the path of least resistance and fall back to the old style (if in doubt, try brushing your teeth from this moment on using your other hand - meaning if you've always used your right hand, now use your left - unless of course you are ambidextrous, then it would be easy). And unless parental support is there to help little Johnny adopts this new method, it is very likely he will revert to his previously known technique, where he is comfortable, good at, and even brings about good results.
So, as one can see from the above, there are a whole host of factors that need to be in place to help the child learn better. And besides, bearing in mind that as Maslow said, "he that is good with the hammer tends to think everything is a nail". Hence, anyone who's been in the corporate world these days would readily recognise that we'll need more than one strategy to succeed, or in my words, to win. We simply cannot rely on just one strategy that might have worked well in the past to continue to perform just as well.
To paraphrase Einstein, to tackle new level of challenges, we'd need a different level of thinking. Put it differently, with the current level of thinking, we cannot hope to solve a more challenging level of problem. So, to get little Johnny to adopt the 'new' technique would require so many factors to be in placed, can you imagine the multitude of factors that must be in place for us, adults, to adopt a 'new' strategy?
Of course, this is further complicated by the structure of the systems in which we operate in (supporting environment), the number of times (or even years or decades) that using the 'old' technique had brought about good or even promising results (experience), how that made us feel about ourselves or how others saw, felt, or thought about us (positive emotions), and of course how we have become 'programmed' to think or execute in a particular manner (path of least resistance).
Part II
Let's take a moment to examine what causes us to think differently. As in the example quoted in our previous discussion it could be because the person whom we're supposed to meet has always been late. Or it could be because this person has never been late before, which caused us to be worried. Hence, it can be a result of our past experiences with this person that caused us to think one way or another.
But what if, we have never met this person before in the past, and do not know enough about this person to make that kind of 'judgement'? What if this was a first date? Well, some of us might just walk off. Some of us might start thinking, maybe he/she really doesn't want to meet us, which could lead to some level of self-doubt. Or some of us might be furious and think, this person really had the audacity to stand me up!
So, in this other situation, where we do not know enough of this person to make such judgements, how do we arrive at such a conclusion? Or think in such a way? Well, it could be for some of us, we have had the experience of being stood up.
Or, it could have been our friends who shared with us their experiences of being had. Either way, the way in which we think can be based on past experiences or through other sources such as from watching movies, reading books, or merely through the experiences of others.
Ok, so in actual fact, how we think can be shaped by past experiences of ours or through the experiences of others. In other words, our thinking can be shaped by the external environment. And the reason why, when we are caught in similar situations, we will almost subconsciously think that way because of the path of least resistance.
Let's just say, we've had previous experiences of being had, and the next time a similar situation occurs, we'll almost automatically think that way. And if we experience more and more of such experiences, we'll just jump to that conclusion.
That's the reason why, for some people, the moment they hear investment, they'll tell you, be careful, because you might lose money. When asked how did they arrive at such a conclusion, reasons may range from, "I've tried it in the past, and I got burnt" to "my uncle lost a lot of money in the stock market". Both situations created a negative emotions for them and as a result, they decided to stay away from it and also advised you to do the same.
Case in point is where, you previously got scald by a boiling kettle and the next time you see a kettle, you'd be extra careful. This is because you were burnt, hurt, and it was painful (negative emotion) and that experience stayed in your mind and probably replay it the moment you see the kettle. As a result, what's happening is in fact your subconscious mind working.
As your subconscious mind does not forget anything and it reacts everytime in a consistent manner each time a similar situation occurs.
Besides, what you subconscious mind is doing is protecting you. Imagine even you were badly burnt the last time, you didn't learn your lesson and you touch another boiling kettle and got burnt, and it happened again, and again, and again...
Well, unless you are suffering from amnesia, you'd most probably remember the last incident and be careful the next time.
Some of you might be familiar with the concept of the "path of least resistance". In other words, we are so used to reacting in a particular manner when faced with a certain situation. So much so that it becomes effortless. Or put it differently, we almost don't even need to think that when X happens, Y will be our response. Imagine like whenever you see the face of your landlord, you'd just want to avoid him. Or, some of us would be familiar with this. Whenever you see that particular person in the office, negative emotions just well up, so much so that you just want to turn and walk away.
Now, of course there are situations where like when you see the love of your life, everything just turn out right. *smile*
imagine, if you can re-train your mind to react in a certain positive manner whenever you need to give an after-dinner speech.
We'll continue with this, with a focus on children and also in the context of your professional life.
But what if, we have never met this person before in the past, and do not know enough about this person to make that kind of 'judgement'? What if this was a first date? Well, some of us might just walk off. Some of us might start thinking, maybe he/she really doesn't want to meet us, which could lead to some level of self-doubt. Or some of us might be furious and think, this person really had the audacity to stand me up!
So, in this other situation, where we do not know enough of this person to make such judgements, how do we arrive at such a conclusion? Or think in such a way? Well, it could be for some of us, we have had the experience of being stood up.
Or, it could have been our friends who shared with us their experiences of being had. Either way, the way in which we think can be based on past experiences or through other sources such as from watching movies, reading books, or merely through the experiences of others.
Ok, so in actual fact, how we think can be shaped by past experiences of ours or through the experiences of others. In other words, our thinking can be shaped by the external environment. And the reason why, when we are caught in similar situations, we will almost subconsciously think that way because of the path of least resistance.
Let's just say, we've had previous experiences of being had, and the next time a similar situation occurs, we'll almost automatically think that way. And if we experience more and more of such experiences, we'll just jump to that conclusion.
That's the reason why, for some people, the moment they hear investment, they'll tell you, be careful, because you might lose money. When asked how did they arrive at such a conclusion, reasons may range from, "I've tried it in the past, and I got burnt" to "my uncle lost a lot of money in the stock market". Both situations created a negative emotions for them and as a result, they decided to stay away from it and also advised you to do the same.
Case in point is where, you previously got scald by a boiling kettle and the next time you see a kettle, you'd be extra careful. This is because you were burnt, hurt, and it was painful (negative emotion) and that experience stayed in your mind and probably replay it the moment you see the kettle. As a result, what's happening is in fact your subconscious mind working.
As your subconscious mind does not forget anything and it reacts everytime in a consistent manner each time a similar situation occurs.
Besides, what you subconscious mind is doing is protecting you. Imagine even you were badly burnt the last time, you didn't learn your lesson and you touch another boiling kettle and got burnt, and it happened again, and again, and again...
Well, unless you are suffering from amnesia, you'd most probably remember the last incident and be careful the next time.
Some of you might be familiar with the concept of the "path of least resistance". In other words, we are so used to reacting in a particular manner when faced with a certain situation. So much so that it becomes effortless. Or put it differently, we almost don't even need to think that when X happens, Y will be our response. Imagine like whenever you see the face of your landlord, you'd just want to avoid him. Or, some of us would be familiar with this. Whenever you see that particular person in the office, negative emotions just well up, so much so that you just want to turn and walk away.
Now, of course there are situations where like when you see the love of your life, everything just turn out right. *smile*
imagine, if you can re-train your mind to react in a certain positive manner whenever you need to give an after-dinner speech.
We'll continue with this, with a focus on children and also in the context of your professional life.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Thoughts + Emotions = Actions
Did you ever had an experience where you were supposed to meet your loved one, say, at 7pm for dinner. You were there at 6.55pm and the other person has not arrived. What was your reaction? Well, for most people, no problem. 7pm, and the other person still has not arrived. What then was your reaction? For some, still no problem, while others, they start having, in NLP terms, a change of state. Meaning, they start getting worried or edgy. 7.30pm and still no sign; most will start having a major change of state.
Of course, in today's context, we will most probably send an sms to the other person and find out where he or she is. Let's just say, you called or sent numerous sms-es but still no response. What happens now?
Some of us might get really worried while some might be furious. So, why do some of us get worried while others get furious? It could be because this person you are meeting is always either on time or early. So we may start thinking, could this person be involved in an accident? Those of us who are furious may react this way because there has been past instances where this person has been late and he or she never bothered to tell us or inform us. Or maybe this person just didn't care or worse, this person may be out with someone else?
So, from this simple illustration we can see that based on similar, if not same, situation we can all react differently. And the reason why we react differently is because of the way we think about things. For those of us who think that, this person might be involved in an accident; we feel worried. And for those of us who think that this person didn't care, feel angry. And how we will react to that person when he or she finally shows up (that is if we waited for this person anyway, or that this person actually shows up) depends greatly on how we felt!
Say, if we felt worried, some of the things we might say include; "thank God you are alright! What happened to you? Are you ok?" For those of us who felt angry, might say, "there you go again, making others wait for you", or "where the hell did you go?", or "you really have the nerve to have me waited so long".
So indeed how we will react to situations really depend a whole lot on how we think. As we think thoughts of concerns, we feel worried. On the other hand, thoughts of how irresponsible this person is, makes us feel angry. And hence, this will lead to different response to the person when he or she shows up. Of course, how this person will react to your response is the topic for another discussion.
Today, we will like to just reflect on why we will think different thoughts. Because when we are able to change our thoughts (or think in a different manner) that will lead us into a more resourceful state, that will lead us to better results, as results are a consequence of our actions.
So, "thoughts + emotions = actions".
Of course, in today's context, we will most probably send an sms to the other person and find out where he or she is. Let's just say, you called or sent numerous sms-es but still no response. What happens now?
Some of us might get really worried while some might be furious. So, why do some of us get worried while others get furious? It could be because this person you are meeting is always either on time or early. So we may start thinking, could this person be involved in an accident? Those of us who are furious may react this way because there has been past instances where this person has been late and he or she never bothered to tell us or inform us. Or maybe this person just didn't care or worse, this person may be out with someone else?
So, from this simple illustration we can see that based on similar, if not same, situation we can all react differently. And the reason why we react differently is because of the way we think about things. For those of us who think that, this person might be involved in an accident; we feel worried. And for those of us who think that this person didn't care, feel angry. And how we will react to that person when he or she finally shows up (that is if we waited for this person anyway, or that this person actually shows up) depends greatly on how we felt!
Say, if we felt worried, some of the things we might say include; "thank God you are alright! What happened to you? Are you ok?" For those of us who felt angry, might say, "there you go again, making others wait for you", or "where the hell did you go?", or "you really have the nerve to have me waited so long".
So indeed how we will react to situations really depend a whole lot on how we think. As we think thoughts of concerns, we feel worried. On the other hand, thoughts of how irresponsible this person is, makes us feel angry. And hence, this will lead to different response to the person when he or she shows up. Of course, how this person will react to your response is the topic for another discussion.
Today, we will like to just reflect on why we will think different thoughts. Because when we are able to change our thoughts (or think in a different manner) that will lead us into a more resourceful state, that will lead us to better results, as results are a consequence of our actions.
So, "thoughts + emotions = actions".
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Time to hear your voice
How would you define the term, "Leadership"?
Please do share with me your definition here.
Thank you.
Please do share with me your definition here.
Thank you.
Visionary & Pragmatic
Recently during a business discussion, an associate of ours remarked pointedly that I was being pragmatic. In truth, there are equal numbers of people that labeled me as visionary as there are pragmatic. As I mentioned that it is possible to be both pragmatic and visionary; some rolled their eyes.
In a sense, many a great leaders in successful Fortune 500 companies are, like what I described, both visionary and pragmatic. In fact, there is one particular leader who is not only visionary and pragmatic, but also a fierce critic at the same time, well, almost.
Just to see if you can name him. He created a cartoon character and named him, Mortimer. It was said that he wanted to re-create a miniature live stream railroad which he named, Carolwood Pacific Railroad. He was reportedly turned down by more than 100 financiers to fund his dream project. He also once said that "dreams offer too little as collateral". At the same, if not for his dream, the world would never know the "happiest place on earth". And his middle name is Elias.
Got it? Yes, he is none other than Walt Disney. Of course Mortimer was renamed Mickey. And the "happiest place on earth" is Disneyland. It was the television studios that funded his dream and some said that the railroad never existed in his childhood home town!
If you study about Walt Disney, you will find that many years later, Robert Dilts, one of the pioneers of NLP, would develop a model of the strategy used by Disney. And this model used the three viewpoints or perspectives employed by Disney. Essentially, Disney had a wonderful imagination. He was a dreamer (visionary) to begin with. Think Disneyland. Then he would ask himself, how can I manifest those dreams in the real world? By now taking on the role of a realist (pragmatic), he would then examine the plan to manifest the dream by looking at the resources, money, time, information needed to make this plan a reality. After that, he would adopt a critical stance and question if people will buy into his dream, is it exciting enough, is it compelling, or would people even bother?
Therefore, while most people usually take one stance or at most two, Disney played all three roles at different times to ensure that any project would be clearly thought through before it was being launched. So much so that some of the close associates of Disney said that sometimes they really didn't know which Walt is coming to work today. Hence, Disney's model of creativity has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to not only be visionary and pragmatic but also being critical too, all that in one person. So next, we will talk about how with each perspective or viewpoint, we can, being the same person, develop different thoughts that create different results.
In a sense, many a great leaders in successful Fortune 500 companies are, like what I described, both visionary and pragmatic. In fact, there is one particular leader who is not only visionary and pragmatic, but also a fierce critic at the same time, well, almost.
Just to see if you can name him. He created a cartoon character and named him, Mortimer. It was said that he wanted to re-create a miniature live stream railroad which he named, Carolwood Pacific Railroad. He was reportedly turned down by more than 100 financiers to fund his dream project. He also once said that "dreams offer too little as collateral". At the same, if not for his dream, the world would never know the "happiest place on earth". And his middle name is Elias.
Got it? Yes, he is none other than Walt Disney. Of course Mortimer was renamed Mickey. And the "happiest place on earth" is Disneyland. It was the television studios that funded his dream and some said that the railroad never existed in his childhood home town!
If you study about Walt Disney, you will find that many years later, Robert Dilts, one of the pioneers of NLP, would develop a model of the strategy used by Disney. And this model used the three viewpoints or perspectives employed by Disney. Essentially, Disney had a wonderful imagination. He was a dreamer (visionary) to begin with. Think Disneyland. Then he would ask himself, how can I manifest those dreams in the real world? By now taking on the role of a realist (pragmatic), he would then examine the plan to manifest the dream by looking at the resources, money, time, information needed to make this plan a reality. After that, he would adopt a critical stance and question if people will buy into his dream, is it exciting enough, is it compelling, or would people even bother?
Therefore, while most people usually take one stance or at most two, Disney played all three roles at different times to ensure that any project would be clearly thought through before it was being launched. So much so that some of the close associates of Disney said that sometimes they really didn't know which Walt is coming to work today. Hence, Disney's model of creativity has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to not only be visionary and pragmatic but also being critical too, all that in one person. So next, we will talk about how with each perspective or viewpoint, we can, being the same person, develop different thoughts that create different results.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
My wish for Singapore's 43rd Birthday
In celebrating Singapore's 43rd Birthday, I will like to discuss a concern brought up by Banyan Tree Holdings Executive Chairman Mr Ho Kwon Ping recently at the Global Leadership Congress that our schools focused too much on technical education and not enough on character development. While I beg to differ on this point, I do agree that schools can definitely do a lot more in the areas of character development to nurture the development of personality, which is the foundation of leadership.
Back to the metaphor of the compass and map, a good leader is someone who not only has a BIG vision, knows how to navigate using the map, but she must also have the moral courage that is guided by the compass. In this respect, teaming moral courage to live by those values and the technical competency to reach the vision, only then will she fulfill her mission.
I am of the view, since we work closely with schools, that schools do pay sufficient focus on academic results, or in Mr Ho's words; technical education. Many a times, we hear that teachers are finally rewarded or acknowledged for their delivery of results. As such, it is no wonder that technical education remains the main (not sole) emphasis of most schools, and their leaders.
From another perspective, it is also not easy to balance rewards and recognitions with the character development component. One can argue that development of characters and personalities take time and the benefits cannot be seen immediately. Just like, how do we reward my teachers then for how they have developed me while I was in school for nurturing me to be a good and responsible citizen now?
Of course, there can early signals that may indicate that one child will be a good and responsible citizen or even a good leader, while another will become a menace to society. I am not an expert in this area, but did Mas Selamat shows signs of a terrorist while at school and should his teachers be punished for what he has or intend to do now?
I believe you and I can see the flaws in the argument above but instead of focusing on the negatives, let us zoom in on the opportunities instead. First, I will like to categorically state that schools have done or have spent some efforts in character development of the child. No school leaders whom we have spoken to, have insisted that academic results were their only focus, or at least at face value. Many schools, if not all, would have programmes that aim to mould the right character in our students. Whether those programmes have been effective is something we need to examine. Also, whether the teachers have been given proper training to mould the child in the area of character development is another issue we need to study.
Finally, even if the schools choose to strike a balance between character and competence, do the parents share the same view? Or will the parents view academic results as the only yardstick that schools should deliver? And to take an extended view of that argument, do universities here give sufficient emphasis to character development in their enrollment criteria? Do future employers also look into the area of character development in their prospective employees?
I think the answers to the above are all "yes". Which brings to mind the African proverb that "it takes a village to raise a child". Everyone in the community or the society at large has a role to play. Not just the educators, but parents, friends, uncles, aunties, employers, colleagues, politicians, government officials, and the list goes on. Each one of us has a role to play in 'raising the child'. And let us not see this child as your child, or my child, or somebody else's child, lets see this child, the next child that you come across as our child, the child of Singapore. And together we can all help to nurture this child, whether it is in the area of competence or character, lets put our efforts together to raise this child to the fullest of his or her potential. For only if this child can realise his or her potential, to become a leader in his or her own right, will we, as a nation have the realise our country's potential.
And my final request to all schools is that, let us not see student leadership as leadership development for the select few. Lets not narrow our definition of leadership to just leadership by title. For leadership is not a title, but action. Hence, lets define leadership as leadership by choice, for we can put a compass and a map into the hands of every child so that it can guide them towards their vision while living by the right values so as to fulfill their mission.
Back to the metaphor of the compass and map, a good leader is someone who not only has a BIG vision, knows how to navigate using the map, but she must also have the moral courage that is guided by the compass. In this respect, teaming moral courage to live by those values and the technical competency to reach the vision, only then will she fulfill her mission.
I am of the view, since we work closely with schools, that schools do pay sufficient focus on academic results, or in Mr Ho's words; technical education. Many a times, we hear that teachers are finally rewarded or acknowledged for their delivery of results. As such, it is no wonder that technical education remains the main (not sole) emphasis of most schools, and their leaders.
From another perspective, it is also not easy to balance rewards and recognitions with the character development component. One can argue that development of characters and personalities take time and the benefits cannot be seen immediately. Just like, how do we reward my teachers then for how they have developed me while I was in school for nurturing me to be a good and responsible citizen now?
Of course, there can early signals that may indicate that one child will be a good and responsible citizen or even a good leader, while another will become a menace to society. I am not an expert in this area, but did Mas Selamat shows signs of a terrorist while at school and should his teachers be punished for what he has or intend to do now?
I believe you and I can see the flaws in the argument above but instead of focusing on the negatives, let us zoom in on the opportunities instead. First, I will like to categorically state that schools have done or have spent some efforts in character development of the child. No school leaders whom we have spoken to, have insisted that academic results were their only focus, or at least at face value. Many schools, if not all, would have programmes that aim to mould the right character in our students. Whether those programmes have been effective is something we need to examine. Also, whether the teachers have been given proper training to mould the child in the area of character development is another issue we need to study.
Finally, even if the schools choose to strike a balance between character and competence, do the parents share the same view? Or will the parents view academic results as the only yardstick that schools should deliver? And to take an extended view of that argument, do universities here give sufficient emphasis to character development in their enrollment criteria? Do future employers also look into the area of character development in their prospective employees?
I think the answers to the above are all "yes". Which brings to mind the African proverb that "it takes a village to raise a child". Everyone in the community or the society at large has a role to play. Not just the educators, but parents, friends, uncles, aunties, employers, colleagues, politicians, government officials, and the list goes on. Each one of us has a role to play in 'raising the child'. And let us not see this child as your child, or my child, or somebody else's child, lets see this child, the next child that you come across as our child, the child of Singapore. And together we can all help to nurture this child, whether it is in the area of competence or character, lets put our efforts together to raise this child to the fullest of his or her potential. For only if this child can realise his or her potential, to become a leader in his or her own right, will we, as a nation have the realise our country's potential.
And my final request to all schools is that, let us not see student leadership as leadership development for the select few. Lets not narrow our definition of leadership to just leadership by title. For leadership is not a title, but action. Hence, lets define leadership as leadership by choice, for we can put a compass and a map into the hands of every child so that it can guide them towards their vision while living by the right values so as to fulfill their mission.
Compass and Map
The idea in which I proposed recently, the metaphor of someone with a compass and a map as a "leader" appealed to many whom I have spoken to.
The compass signifies the mission and the values of the person. Armed with both a mission and also a set of values, this person now has a "true north" that guides her actions. Meaning to say, whether she will or will not participates in certain activities will be guided by her "true north", or in other words whether these activities are aligned to her mission and values.
The map represents the path she would take to arrive at her destination. That destination would be her vision, her end in mind, or what she would like to create. That vision will also need to be aligned to her mission and values. Or put it differently, in other to fulfill her mission, she will need to reach her vision. Of course the underlying assumption here is that a leader would have a vision, for the Bible says, where there is no vision, the people will perish.
So, the idea that the map is not the territory means that even with the best laid plans, she might have to change course or navigate around some 'mountains' and 'rivers' to reach her destination. That is not to sound pessimistic but rather to be realistic and pragmatic.
The fundamental flaw in this concept lies in the lack of involving others. As an Afghan proverb puts it succinctly, "if you think you are leading but no one is following you, then you're only talking a walk". This was why we discussed about the issue of BIG dreams in "A Game for Two".
In other to enlist the help of others in achieving our vision, that "end in mind" must be BIG, in the sense that others can participate in, and participate meaningfully too. If it is just to enrich ourselves, often times we will be taking a walk. Or even when people join us in that journey, very likely they will not be in your company for long.
The compass signifies the mission and the values of the person. Armed with both a mission and also a set of values, this person now has a "true north" that guides her actions. Meaning to say, whether she will or will not participates in certain activities will be guided by her "true north", or in other words whether these activities are aligned to her mission and values.
The map represents the path she would take to arrive at her destination. That destination would be her vision, her end in mind, or what she would like to create. That vision will also need to be aligned to her mission and values. Or put it differently, in other to fulfill her mission, she will need to reach her vision. Of course the underlying assumption here is that a leader would have a vision, for the Bible says, where there is no vision, the people will perish.
So, the idea that the map is not the territory means that even with the best laid plans, she might have to change course or navigate around some 'mountains' and 'rivers' to reach her destination. That is not to sound pessimistic but rather to be realistic and pragmatic.
The fundamental flaw in this concept lies in the lack of involving others. As an Afghan proverb puts it succinctly, "if you think you are leading but no one is following you, then you're only talking a walk". This was why we discussed about the issue of BIG dreams in "A Game for Two".
In other to enlist the help of others in achieving our vision, that "end in mind" must be BIG, in the sense that others can participate in, and participate meaningfully too. If it is just to enrich ourselves, often times we will be taking a walk. Or even when people join us in that journey, very likely they will not be in your company for long.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Be the CAUSE that brings about the desired EFFECTS
A World Class Education
“I don't want to send another generation of American children to failing schools. I don't want that future for my daughters. I don't want that future for your sons. I do not want that future for America.”
— Barack Obama, Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Des Moines, Iowa, November 10, 2007
There are two reasons why I have chosen to be a supporter of Senator Obama. Firstly, I have always been a great fan of individuals with amazing oratorical skills, and Senator Obama has been widely quoted as one of the most eloquent speaker since JFK. It is also my firm believe that individuals who are able to communicate clearly will be able to better lead others towards a noble cause. Secondly, my support for Senator Obama is due largely to his advocacy on educational issues throughout his career.
As someone who firmly believes in the benefits of education and what education can do not just for our youth, as a leveler of societal disparity, and of course as a hope for any country; I can certainly resonate with what Senator Obama has put forth in his views about educational issues.
While I do not profess to be a know-all in his views on education; I am learning through research and reading up on this particular issue. Which is why I got hold of the book, The Audacity of Hope, recently.
I believe once we have set our mind and energy on a particular cause that we sincerely care about and wants to make a difference in this area, our lives will become even more meaningful and purposeful.
As a benefactor of the education system in Singapore, I certainly can speak for its good and also its areas for improvements. There is no perfect system, though hindsight is always 20-20, any anachronistic system that does not seek to change, for the better, serves no one but those who live their lives backwards.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Lucky You
Just today, I had the opportunity to speak with a group of educators. In fact, I enjoyed many such conversations as there are indeed many hidden gems after you ponder over it and reflect upon it.
One of the topics included the kind of advantages the new generation has over their predecessors. This reminded me of a story that was shared with me about a conversation between a child and his grandfather. The child was boasting about what the new generation has created; the internet, starbucks, computers, hybrid cars, space shuttles, and so on. The grandfather immediately shot back, saying that his generation was the one who laid all the foundations for all that were mentioned so that those creations are possible.
Along those lines, one of the educators were saying that the new generation is so lucky to have all the foundations laid out, so that when new recruits join the institution, they could just pick up and go.
This was what got me thinking. You see, back in the 80s, or even up to the 90s, some people believed that knowledge is power. That led to withholding information for fear that if someone were to get hold it, they would gain a competitive edge. So much so that when the term, knowledge worker, was coined, new concepts such as knowledge management tools appear. The whole idea was to codify tacit knowledge. In other words, to capture what you know into documents, manuals, flow charts, process maps so that even if the 'knowledge worker' walks out of the organization, the knowledge is retained. Exciting idea, but feasibility is questionable.
Flowing from that concept of knowledge management is the idea of getting organizations to adopt a particular framework, like the Malcolm Baldridge, as these are tried and tested frameworks adopted by world-class organizations. Hence the thinking behind it was, if your organizations were to adopt the same framework, it, too, can become world-class. Sounds logical but fundamentally difficult to implement.
Here, there are two seemingly different ideas but they are fundamentally the same to me. While it is true that tacit knowledge that is codified can be used and re-used again and again. And as such, these 'best practices' can be quickly adopted by individuals (or organizations as in the case of a world-class organization framework) who may have little or no experience in the area concerned. Some what, it is similar to someone who is being invited to give an after dinner speech but have no idea what to talk about and hence browse the web for witty subjects to present.
Should this person be a class-act in terms of putting up a facade, he may be able to pull this through. But anyone with a little conscience would know that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. As such, even with free and widely available content, unless the person who is using it has sufficient baseline knowledge of the subject matter, it would be impossible to fake it. Or put it in another way, try memorizing some medical facts and attempt to pass off as a doctor.
So, in my opinion the availability of such wealth of information is good only when we have a purpose for it. For the implementation of the knowledge is not without significant efforts, understanding the intent of the knowledge is fundamental.
The other thing is, even with such wealth of information is not enough to get you ahead. Understanding how to make use of the information is one, knowing how to build upon it is another. Therefore, having a wealth of information do not a wise man make.
One of the topics included the kind of advantages the new generation has over their predecessors. This reminded me of a story that was shared with me about a conversation between a child and his grandfather. The child was boasting about what the new generation has created; the internet, starbucks, computers, hybrid cars, space shuttles, and so on. The grandfather immediately shot back, saying that his generation was the one who laid all the foundations for all that were mentioned so that those creations are possible.
Along those lines, one of the educators were saying that the new generation is so lucky to have all the foundations laid out, so that when new recruits join the institution, they could just pick up and go.
This was what got me thinking. You see, back in the 80s, or even up to the 90s, some people believed that knowledge is power. That led to withholding information for fear that if someone were to get hold it, they would gain a competitive edge. So much so that when the term, knowledge worker, was coined, new concepts such as knowledge management tools appear. The whole idea was to codify tacit knowledge. In other words, to capture what you know into documents, manuals, flow charts, process maps so that even if the 'knowledge worker' walks out of the organization, the knowledge is retained. Exciting idea, but feasibility is questionable.
Flowing from that concept of knowledge management is the idea of getting organizations to adopt a particular framework, like the Malcolm Baldridge, as these are tried and tested frameworks adopted by world-class organizations. Hence the thinking behind it was, if your organizations were to adopt the same framework, it, too, can become world-class. Sounds logical but fundamentally difficult to implement.
Here, there are two seemingly different ideas but they are fundamentally the same to me. While it is true that tacit knowledge that is codified can be used and re-used again and again. And as such, these 'best practices' can be quickly adopted by individuals (or organizations as in the case of a world-class organization framework) who may have little or no experience in the area concerned. Some what, it is similar to someone who is being invited to give an after dinner speech but have no idea what to talk about and hence browse the web for witty subjects to present.
Should this person be a class-act in terms of putting up a facade, he may be able to pull this through. But anyone with a little conscience would know that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. As such, even with free and widely available content, unless the person who is using it has sufficient baseline knowledge of the subject matter, it would be impossible to fake it. Or put it in another way, try memorizing some medical facts and attempt to pass off as a doctor.
So, in my opinion the availability of such wealth of information is good only when we have a purpose for it. For the implementation of the knowledge is not without significant efforts, understanding the intent of the knowledge is fundamental.
The other thing is, even with such wealth of information is not enough to get you ahead. Understanding how to make use of the information is one, knowing how to build upon it is another. Therefore, having a wealth of information do not a wise man make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
