I wish to kick start the topic by sharing my self-coined analogy as follows:
The chief executive officer (CEO) is a corporation's "heart" (focal point) that directs the flow of "blood" (business related activities) to the "body" (corporation). The other top management executives are the "lungs" (vital complementary factor) which provides "oxygen" (boost) to the blood (business related activities) so that the entire body (corporation) can function properly.
The heart and the lungs must be strong so that they can relay the essential life line for other "organs" (departments) and "components" (staff members) to function well.
I use the above analogy to impress upon readers these evident truths:
* Before a corporation can be wholesome, it must have the right CEO and key officers in place as the prerequisite.
* The CEO and key officers must be stellar performers themselves, just like the heart and lungs must individually function well and be in fine condition. If the performance of one side falters, the other side will also falter.
* The CEO and key officers must complement one another in conveying the right communication and morale to the whole manpower in the corporation.
*The CEO and key officers must be strong individually and strong as a cohesive team. A strong CEO cannot excel without the cooperation of strong key officers; likewise strong key officers cannot excel without the guidance and leadership of a strong CEO.
* A corporation which desires to beat competition must give top priority to secure a dynamic paramount leader. The quality of its chief executive and quality of key officers are inter-connected. An astute No. 1 leader will know how to pick dynamic candidates to be his "generals" deliver the right financial results. Such is the domino effect.
Now, let us talk about the No. 1 position first. Revered corporate CEOs have the following common traits:
# MEAN WHAT THEY SAY AND SAY WHAT THEY MEAN
They follow through to honour commitments declared by them. They state their intents of purpose with utmost sincerity. They do not make promises unless they are serious in the fulfilment.
# ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR FAULTS
They take cognizance when an action or directive turns out to be erroneous. They then set out to rectify the error.
# ACCEPT UNINTENDED ERRORS OF SUBORDINATES
They recognise that people sometimes make inadvertent mistakes. On one hand, they exonerate the subordinates as long as the mistakes are not due to gross negligence or intentional. On the other hand, they counsel positively, to the extent of instilling encouragement rather than lashing admonition.
# EXHIBIT CONCERN FOR THE PEOPLE AT LARGE IN HIS FOLD
They are not self-centred. They treat employees as people, not resources at their disposal.
Contrarily, CEOs of the opposite type reflect at least one of the following common traits:
# MERE STORY TELLERS
They are fond of depicting false positive scenarios as their ploy to garner support. Their stories are unreal, merely to project a feel-good atmosphere. Mere story tellers cannot be trusted to fulfill promises. They do not say what they mean (making statements different from real intent); neither do they mean what they say (not serious to honour statements made by them).
# DIVERT BLAME TO OTHERS WHEN EVENTS OR MISSIONS FAIL
Instead of admitting their shortcomings in leadership, they point fingers at subordinates' incompetency. They look for scapegoats to take the blame in order to exonerate themselves. Although they may not be totally responsible for an uneventful result, yet they are somewhat accountable by virtue of their position. When any fiasco happens, the CEO may not be directly responsible for it but still deemed accountable.
# METE PUNITIVE JUDGEMENTS FOR UNINTENDED FAULTS CREATED BY SUBORDINATES
For fear of punitive actions regardless whether a fault is major or minor, the subordinates directly below the CEO will strictly adhere to set guidelines for implementing activities and thus refrain from making decisions. The discretionary experience of subordinates will be stifled.
# SELF-CENTRED.
The focus on their own well being in deeds and actions, not heeding the needs of the work force at large.
The Vital Element of CEO Material
Notwithstanding the above traits, the most vital determining element of CEO material is this: Is the chief executive a PRIME MOVER or PASSIVE STAYER by personality? Passive stayers never manifest as strong CEOs. Only prime movers have the cut to transmit the right directions for subordinates to do the right things in the right way. We have to bear in mind key officers in a corporation look up to their CEO for key directions. They key officers should take the cue from their CEO before they relay the same cue to subordinates down the hierarchy - that is how the organizational system works to ensure overall sync. Let us look at a juxtaposition of prime movers VS passive stayers.
PRIME MOVERS (PM) PASSIVE STAYERS (PS)
Entrepreneurial Conservative
Innovative Conventional
Risk taker Unadventurous
Energetic Complacent
Inspiring (others) Stifling (others)
Respect (other views) Demur (other views)
Now, the definitions:
PM: ENTREPRENEURIAL
Business minded. Embark on visions and missions geared for attaining quantum leaps in both top line (business revenue) and bottom line (profit) results. Possess ardent drive to reach greater heights of achievement. Deploy strategies to enhance the brand name of the enterprise. Willing to bear more expenses for campaigns if confident that such would significantly boost business growth and overall profit. Keen to carve new market niches from time to time. Instil an air of vibrancy and flexibility in the work environment.
PS: CONSERVATIVE
Vision and mission for the future is not vital when current situation appears fine. Prefer status quo as long as the revenue and profit figures are reasonably alright. No drive to reach out for excellent achievement. Be contented with mediocre results, including business levels. Keep tight control over expenses. Not bold to embark on unexplored aspects which may pose exposure to some risks even if not expected to be enormous. Bring about a dull work environment in the corporation whereby an air of prohibitions and inhibitions prevails.
PM; INNOVATIVE
Initiate new approaches, events, campaigns to drive revenues. Know how to play up the atmosphere in the corporation to boost morale of the work force. Strive to break out from repeating the same business activities in the same or similar ways. Conduct frequent brainstorming and researches to derive viable ideas. Willing to think out of the normal box; better still, create new exploratory boxes.
PS: CONVENTIONAL
Carry on "business as usual (BAU) activities in business operations. Seldom introduce new initiatives. Tolerate a mundane atmosphere without hype. Lack creation of ideas. Think and act silo.
PM: RISK TAKER
Explore possibilities to venture into non-established/new avenues with calculated risks within acceptable boundaries. Exercise analysis, judgement and discretion when facing vital business issues. Will take on projects deemed to offer substantial business potentials if relevant risk level exposures are deemed manageable. Dare to take challenges.
PS: UNADVENTUROUS
Prefer to remain in comfort and safety zones. Being contented with BAU activities, just like the conventional-minded passive stayer character. Lack analytical, judgement and discretionary instincts. Dull-minded. Not willing to take risks or challenges.
PM: ENERGETIC
Those who are entrepreneurial and innovative are also energetic. Sprightly and highly spirited. Always engaged in work activities. Passionately driving the enterprise. Willing to be on the frequent move and travel if such will contribute positively to the business. Interactive. Sociable. Emphatic in verbal communication and speech. Know how to keep a balance between work time and personal time. Settle major issues urgently. A protagonist.
PS: COMPLACENT
Laid back. Not much involvement in work related activities. Prefer to be an "armchair critic" in meetings and discussions without being actively involved to give directions for settling issues. Conservative, conventional and unadventurous people are normally also complacent. Neither interactive or socially active. Give priority to personal time over work time. Lack sense of urgency even when situations warrant immediate attention. Act by normal strides. Overly "cool", devoid of any work pressure or excitement.
PM: INSPIRING
Reflect leadership in terms of ability to influence others. Frequently deploy encouragement approaches. Captivating personality. Effective counselor. Eloquent. Philosophical. Strong people knowledge - in human behaviour/psychology. Good motivator. Open-minded. Willing to empower the right subordinates but with some overview guidance. Well respected by others.
PS: STIFLING
Lack leadership skills. Like to pin-point faults of others. Dampen morale by reprimanding subordinates. Uninspiring speech delivery. Poor interaction connectivity. Poor listener. Poor in delegating empowerment. Micro management style. Not understanding. Not well regarded by peers and subordinates.
PM: RESPECT
Courteous. Maintain composure when discussing issues. Allow relevant parties to express their views, recognise their inputs. May be firm in stand based on valid grounds but maintain cordiality in dealings with subordinates. Mindful of religious and cultural beliefs and sensitivities. Professional demeanor. Believe in exhibiting mutual understanding and mutual respect. Can win natural respect from others.
PS: DEMUR
Unreasonable. Crude. Like to run down subordinates. Repressive. Insensitive. Inconsiderate. Use caustic remarks. Aloof. Disallow others' views. Autocratic. Negatively regarded by subordinates. Demand "forced" respect from subordinates.
Prime movers are natural leaders at the top levels. Passive stayers equate to followers who should be positions to take the cue from the helm instead of giving cue to others. The latter will fail miserably to play the leader role.
(extracted from Dilbert cartoon series)
Specific Qualifying Strengths of Effective Leaders
To elaborate further, dynamic leaders (CEOs and key officers) are top management officers who possess the following combined qualifying qualities:
* Sufficient experience exposure relevant to the business of the corporation.
* Reasonably wide technical knowledge, at least to have clear overview - for overall general understanding of the industry and business concerned.
* Analytical. Able to grasp pertinent perspectives of prevailing situations and issues pertaining to the corporation.
* Execution of sound judgement, decision and discretion.
* Adept articulation. Able to express well in writing and verbal presentation. Able to influence others and secure their buy-in.
* Pervasive and penetrative public relations - establish wide connectivity, both within the corporation and outside. Good relations with all levels of stakeholders, namely board members, shareholders, subordinates and outsourced service providers. Healthy networking relationship with the local media and the government.
* Maintain composure when facing difficult or urgent situations. Not temperamental. Do no lose temper or become too emotional.
* Team builder. Encourage mutual understanding to pave way for mutual respect, which then promotes mutual support, to hit the desired (mutual) corporate goals.
Conclusion
In an earlier article posted in my blog, I promulgated that profound management involves mainly one aspect, i.e. PUT THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT JOBS. When a corporation has the right people in place, implementation tasks will generally be in pristine order. First things first, for a corporation to have an upper edge over competitors, it is imperative to first have a dynamic CEO. Then, the CEO should be granted the mandate to select his key officers. Such a move may call for re-structuring at the top management, if necessary so.
I like to cite a prominent example in the property development industry in Malaysia. A renowned private development company focusing on high-end residential and commercial units was doing extremely well both on local grounds and overseas because of the dynamic leadership of its CEO. At the prime of its success, the CEO left to join a competitor as chairman. Now, the development corporation he is steering, with the "eco" image, is creating even greater waves in the property ocean, also locally and overseas.
When the CEO of a corporation is the right one, there is likelihood the key officers under him will be the right ones, whether by way of replacing the old with new capable ones or grooming up the existing pool if they have potentials for improvement. It depends on how the CEO wants to drive home his plans and the qualities of his direct down-liners. Having the right key officers will ramify to having the right subordinates further down the hierarchy to a greater extent than normal scenarios. About 50 per cent of the goal to propel effectiveness and efficiency for the corporation is at hand with the appointment of a dynamic CEO. About 70 per cent is secured with the appointment of the dynamic CEO and dynamic key officers to instil the right values into the overall work force. Although 100 per cent in efficacy may not be achievable, yet at least the journey to quantum leaps is generally on track.
Ends....
QUALITIES & CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD CORPORATE LEADERS
RATIONALISING EXISTING MANPOWER TO PIVOT AN OPTIMAL WORK FORCE
In my last posting entitled "Of People, Jobs & Management", I postulated that effective management entails putting the right people in the right jobs.
Acquiring the right manpower stretches more than recruiting good new people, especially senior personnel, into the contingent of a corporation. The endeavour also relates to rationalising the entire manpower makeup toward optimisation.
Rationalising manpower involves a master plan for: 1) Relocating some existing employees. 2) Structured re-training implementation. 3) Terminations. 4) Replacements. 5) New Hires.
In simpler terms, the exercise covers overall manpower restructure.
Relocating an employee to another position is aimed at putting him in a job which matches more with his profile.
For those who are not faring that well in their jobs but have potentials for improvement, structured re-training should be provided to ensure they finally fully meet the requirements of their current roles. Re-training encompasses formal guidance and grooming approaches apart from classroom sessions.
With the utterly inept individuals, the apt course is severance, either by way of mutual separation arrangement or termination on valid grounds. Positions vacated may be filled up by existing experienced staff with the right acumen for the job scopes. or if none available, then by new qualified intakes to replace the outgoing. Off-loading excess and redundant employees - or simply put, the unnecessary manpower baggage - supports manpower expense optimisation. More excess baggage means more unnecessary manpower expenses. Considerations such as whether a particular role can be comfortably handled by one staff instead of two, or whether two positions could viably be merged into one, should be looked at.
New hiring may take place when a new role is created because of need but there is no existing employee who fits the bill to assume the job. For example, if a corporation feels it is high time to engage an internal public affairs officer instead of continuing to outsource all public relations (PR) assignments to a PR firm, then it makes sense to recruit a PR specialist. Experienced journalists who can articulate well and also have wide social contacts, including with government sectors, are good candidates to head public affairs for large corporations. However, the corporation needs to assess the cost efficiency versus the result impact of such a move first, i.e. to decipher if more costs will be incurred by setting up an internal public affairs department compared to outsourcing PR activities to external PR firms. And if the costs will be higher, a forecast whether the expected results will be more vibrant than before is to be concluded. The corporation needs to pre-assess the worthiness of such a proposed option.
Any corporation wishing to embark on a full-scale revamp to have the right people in the right jobs in place across the board must recognise that manpower rationalisation is part and parcel of the endeavour. At this juncture, I like to highlight a caveat for attention of board members and chief executives. Moving staff away from where they are - especially those being replaced - may trigger an air of negativism in the general work environment for a while. General morale may take a dip until the situation gets properly adjusted. Rationalisation, if effected immaculately, will see positive fruition as the end result in the longer run. Initially, for an interim period, there may be some challenging issues to iron out.
The prime question on the contemplation plate of topmost managements is: Are they prepared to experience the bane (managing initial personnel discontent and negative sentiments) in order to attain the boon (achieving higher levels of excellence)? Are they willing to fork out one-time upfront separation pay-outs? Is the corporation willing to experience "pain" before acquiring "gain"?
Once, I attended a special talk delivered by a prominent management guru (I prefer not to cite his name as I did not ask him for consent). I recorded a few vivid statements professed by him. Keeping people who ought not be around would be stumbling blocks to the successful transformation of a company, he emphasised. Besides aiming to find the right people, it is equally important to manage out the wrong ones.
I like to share a quote of Sir Richard Branson, the "revolutionary" founder of Virgin Group. He became an entrepreneur at age 16, made his first million at 25. Here is a punchy quote extracted from a question and answer platform of the New York Times. "The right person (manager) will build upon what you (the top management) have created, but the wrong person can bring it all down vey quickly - and (the right) culture can take an awfully long time to rebuild."
Rationalisation to a corporation is not an option but a necessity when facing either or both of the following situations:
* Need to undergo transformation in order to break through a prolonged stagnation in business growth.
* Financial losses, which will lead to the "demise" of the business if manpower structure is not overhauled.
Take the example of a national airline in Europe which was making losses until a "Mister Turnaround" got appointed to take over the helm in 2009. The new chief executive had to deal with relevant unions while instituting a rationalisation plan. Prudently carried through, the airline began to rebound with positive financial signs. In 2014, its operating profit increased by 18 per cent over 2013.
Not many corporations are prepared to rock the status quo boat. Those which are faring fairly prefer to let the existing manpower structure be, albeit knowing there is room for further enhancement. To their top management, it is not worth stirring up unnecessary alarm in the prevailing docile work environment whilst the financials are still in reasonable shape.
For a corporation not making headway in its business ventures and encountering costs overrun, manpower rationalisation is inevitable necessary, along with revamps in other areas. Without embarking on such a move, the ailing corporation will never recover. Instead, it will plunge into deeper pits.
Other situations that could prompt a corporation to mull over a manpower rationalisation are:
* Merger of two companies. The newly merged corporation wants to reduce roles (in the two companies) that overlap, thus releasing the redundant headcounts.
* Times of challenging economic outlook with expected prolonged downturn of business revenue. For instance, some banks in a south-east Asia nation watch their cost-to-income ratio during a period of trying economic environment. In 2015, one bank targeted to push down the ratio to be in line with the industry's average of below 50 per cent. It then offered a career transition scheme (in essence a separation scheme) as part of the overall optimisation plan.
No doubt, any rationalisation exercise must be thoroughly thought through and meticulously planned in order to be infallible. Allow me to share my pointers on the key steps for successful implementation (below).
1. Affirm the certainty of direction, i.e. to formulate the right manpower size, with the right people put in the right jobs.
2. Identify which roles/positions can be merged, and which ones are redundant.
3. Draw up a holistic plan for merging overlapping roles, and relinquishing obvious unwanted ones. Relocation/transfer or re-positioning of redundant employees should be the first consideration provided they can fit other tasks within the company. But to employees deemed as unnecessary headcounts, an amicable exit scheme will be the practical move.
4. Draw up a tactful communication process to cascade to the work force why the rationalisation exercise is required. This must be done according to an intricately thought through process before implementation. Managing people's sentiments is not easy. It is a sensitive matter, which if not handled with prudence, could arouse strong resentment from the overall work force.
5. Work out amicable separation packages to the excess personnel. The management must be prepared to bear the one-time pay-out cost for the sake of successful transformation toward prominent vibrancy in all respects. A fair package is one based on years of service, rank and in line with relevant labour laws. The management needs to ascertain the one-time separation pay-out quantum will emanate to substantial savings in manpower cost measured within a specific time-frame. For example, if a redundant employee has another few years to retirement, will the separation pay-out be less than the total remuneration payable to him if he is retained until retirement? Such comparison involves mathematical computation analysis.
6. Institute structured guidance and training programmes for relocated and re-positioned employees and others who need improvement in performance. The objective is to ensure they fit well into their assigned jobs.
Conclusion:
Whether manpower rationalisation is an option or necessity, the decision first rests on the board of directors concerned, then probably on the chief executive in consonance with the board. To corporations that are faring quite well, the pertinent decision may be to go for optimising the right manpower size, with the right people in the right jobs, so as to reach excellence. Or they may opt for status quo so as not to experience the elements of bane before securing the boon. To corporations not doing well - worse still, the ailing ones - rationalisation in all aspects, especially manpower, becomes a matter of survival.
I want to close by citing a salient actual example of the national air carrier of a south-east Asian country. It underwent a massive overhaul in 2015 as the last resort after being in the red financially (significant losses) for five years, exacerbated by two flight disasters in 2014. The government-backed major shareholders appointed a new chief executive - an expatriate deemed as a maverick for having successfully turned around a couple of ailing airlines. The old corporate name was dissolved. A new corporation was reconstituted. Excess employees were offered a mutual separation package. The manpower size was reduced by more than 30 per cent. Those retained signed a new employment agreement with a revised remuneration scheme. Some were reassigned to new functions. Re-training was instituted. Career carnivals, which brought various related companies as participants, were organised for terminated employees to seek for job opportunities.
The major manpower rationalisation, along with revamp of excessive costs for outsourced ancillary services and curtailment of unnecessary recurring expenses, was the only recourse for survival. The mission to regain financial soundness would take a while to manifest.
The bane of facing up to arbitration issues with employees' unions of the airline and general grouses seem to have subsided at the time of my scripting this article in September 2015. Over the past few months, no adverse news reports resurfaced. On the contrary, a national newspaper carried a story on September 13, 2015 that quoted positive comments from former employees about their former employer. Here are some summarised excerpts from the story::
* He (a former customer services department staff) described the compensation (mutual separation package) as "fair" for his 17 years of service.
* A former controller said he was grateful to the company for offering him a fairly good retrenchment deal. "I only had another four years before retirement and the compensation sum is something which I see no reason to complain about."
* He (a former aircraft technician) said: "I knew the company is undergoing a restructuring exercise. I do no blame them for terminating me." He was one of the over 700 former staff who attended a career carnival to look for job opportunities. He attended four interviews with two other airlines and aircraft maintenance firms since September 1 but no job offers as yet (as at September 13, 2015).
Seemingly, lull set in after the stretched stormy episode. The new chief executive appeared to have deployed the right rationalisation approach. For now, as at September 2015, it is still early to reckon when the airline will be able to return to the black financially (with profits). At least, now that all aspects of operations under the new management have resumed to normal without further major issues, this initial positive signal points to better seasons ahead. An on-line news portal reported the new chief executive as saying the flag carrier should be able to reach break-even by year 2018. Sounds like a viable target, coming from a maverick who possesses past success stories on rationalisation to his credit and who was bold enough to carry out a major manpower restructuring in this airline. Looks like the restructured corporation got the right chief executive for the mammoth task to implement the right rationalisation execution?
ABOUT PEOPLE, JOBS & EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
I like to start off by asking a fundamental question to readers who hold top management positions: What constitutes effective management?
The question appears easy, which many in high echelons will readily respond with their perceptions.
Most may jump into the common bandwagon of conventional corporate hats to propagate it involves efficacies in implementing various key functions, namely delegation, supervision, planning, monitoring, control, analysis, assessment, direction........and so forth.
A popular encyclopaedia promulgates a more academically inclined definition. It outlines management as "the art of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively; management comprises planning, organising, staffing, directing and controlling an organisation."
I feel such narratives are correct merely from the functional overview perspective. To clarify my point, let me paraphrase my earlier question: What is the core determinant (in a corporation) that ensures all the important functions are in good order? Or alternatively rephrased, what is the prime factor that must be instituted by a corporation to deliver desired results? Well, my answer is expressed in my following management philosophy:
PUT THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT JOBS!
Sounds simple and practical as a philosophy, but not so in actual practice. To carry out this endeavour, corporations must be prepared to make some changes to their prevailing manpower structure. Changes invariably entail the preparedness to face up to some challenges.
First, the topmost management representatives must identify and then install the necessary jobs in place while weaning off redundant or irrelevant ones. Let me elaborate by giving an example.
Some financial service corporations have departments that are interlinked with one another, like compliance and risk management, hence creating positions for two separate department heads. Are the two roles not part and parcel of each other, which could be merged? Misdeeds like unethical marketing methods deployed by wayward business promotion personnel will ultimately tarnish the image of the corporation concerned. Such misdeed is a service, business and company image risk, if unabated. So, is the issue to be managed by the chief risk officer (CRO) only? To contain unethical business promotion approaches, is it not also a compliance issue; is it not a concern of the chief compliance officer (CCO) to ensure adherence to stipulated guidelines relating to such activities? What if the CRO, on one hand, and the CCO, on the other hand, hold differing stands regarding an obvious unethical sale episode? Whose view takes precedence and which side is responsible to resolve the problem? Will there be confusion or controversy among the two sides due to overlapping functional roles?
I opine that the compliance sector should be the overall scrutineer of risk issues. Containing risks means ensuring all work activities, processes and procedures comply with relevant encompassing guidelines set by the regulatory authorities, besides internal guidelines. Compliance and risk management functions overlap each other. Unless the regulatory authorities disallow so, appointing one overall head, i.e. chief compliance cum risk officer, to be accountable for wearing both hats may make more sense. Having one "merged" head of department in this respect averts redundancy.
In event the need arises to appoint a separate risk management head independent from the compliance head because of internal requirements, then the specific responsibilities and accountabilities of each should be unequivocally spelt out to avoid redundancy and possible confusion. Bear in mind redundancy also causes unwarranted extra costs.
Equally important as determining the right key jobs in a corporation is the wisdom to identify the right person for each. With regard to this, I like to elaborate by expanding further the slogan on "Put the right people in the right jobs". Here goes..........
Stanza 1: Put the right people in the right jobs, you'll get effectiveness and efficiency.
Stanza 2: Put the right people in the wrong jobs, you'll get underutilisation of manpower resource.
Stanza 3: Put the wrong people in the right jobs, you'll get dismal performance.
Stanza 4: Put the wrong people in the wrong jobs, you'll get........CHAOS!!!
Now, I explain with elaborations for each stanza.
1. When personnel of the right acumen in terms of qualification, experience and characteristics are matched with their respective role that is essential, probability of the corporation meeting its overall objectives will be high. Flaws can be averted. Redundancy and wastage can be curtailed The right jobs represent the important ones that cater for alignment with the set objectives. The right quality of people facilitates performance on high note because they know how to execute the right tasks in their right roles the right way to meet objectives. Effectiveness emanates from doing the right things. Efficiency emanates from doing things in the right way. Effectiveness plus efficiency is the sum of doing the right things right consistently.
2. Let us say a corporation engages an outstanding key executive with prominent positive attitude and wits, whose forte is in marketing strategies. Let us say he is assigned to head sales training instead of a marketing strategist position. Although market strategizing also relates to modelling of training programmes for sales personnel, yet any seasoned sales trainer would fit the bill to deliver such programmes. Appointing a marketing strategist to train sales personnel is akin to underutilisation of his capability. In fact, it is somewhat a loss to the corporation for failing to harness his special skills for more business vitality. Although sales training may be easily undertaken by him, yet it is not the matching role for manifestation of his expertise. His skills should be tapped to the maximum for more eventful sales results, which can only proper by putting him to plan vibrant marketing strategies.
3. Take the scenario of a corporation reliant on a large agency sales force to promote its products. The position of a chief agency officer (CAO) to manage the force is definitely needed. The essence pivoting the success of group results is the prowess level of the appointed CAO. It is a question whether he is cut for the vital role. Presuming that the top sales agent is asked to take on the job, would he fit in perfectly? Well, maybe not so. Why? An elite sales agent is good for his personal sales, reaped from his eminent direct clientele contacts. In comparison, a dynamic CAO is one who works well with his sales agents; he ably guides them toward achieving individual and hence group sales goals. The top sales agent may not be experienced enough to command other sales agents, or may not be a strong team player since he has all along been an individual sales performer. Business objectives of a corporation cannot be achieved by appointing sales management personnel without leadership experience to lead team members.
4. As demonstrated earlier, a wrong job is one that overlaps with another jurisdiction, or redundant, or irrelevant, or not commensurate with the skills of a personnel. To make the situation worse is to appoint someone totally inept. Let us refer again to the earlier example of a separate risk management head existing side by side with the compliance head. Presume an auditor from mutual fund service background is recruited to be the CRO in an insurance company. Being unfamiliar with the technicalities and regulatory guidelines relevant to the insurance industry, he would not be able to readily keep tab on risk elements and supervise his team efficiently. Work flow may be in a mess. And presuming he is a person who rigidly sticks to his guns in his opinion, would he not head for conflict with his compliance counterpart regarding a risk issue which violated set compliant guidelines? The end result of an inept head wearing a redundant hat - a chaotic working environment in his jurisdiction.
In theory, hiring the right people sounds practical. In reality, that does not occur across the board by practice of top executives. They are fond of picking their team of second-liners based on either one or more of the following criteria:
# Candidates of subservient character who toe the line without dissent - aptly described, the yes-men - are preferred.
Yes-men refrain from exhibiting diverse actions and opinions. Rather, they faithfully carry out what their boss tells them to do, regardless knowing whether workable or unworkable. Their boss actually makes all the main calls, and they just follow orders. The subservient type reflects character weakness. A docile character will never make own important decisions, thus lacking initiative. Top executives who micro manage always show they exert authority over subordinates. Having yes-men under them will appear they are in total command.
# Strong contenders by virtue of proven records, qualifications and experiences are not favoured as such individuals may outshine their superiors.
Top executives want to protect their own turf. They shun appointing potential competitors who could pose as future threats to their position. So, the second-liners are normally average performers, churning out average results.
# A candidate in the same fraternal circle (with the key executive) is preferred over an "outsider", although the latter may be more qualified for the specific role.
Quality is no longer the main consideration. Again, the intent is for turf protection rather than turf enhancement. Having a friend in the fold is safer than an unknown individual of higher quality but not sure whether he will ultimately toe the line. Unless the selected candidate from the same fraternal circle is also affirmed a good one for the right job, the choice will seem imprudent.
# Remuneration package should not be flexible but be conservatively capped in order to contain manpower expenses.
Good people cannot be attracted by unattractive remuneration package. When the quality of selected candidates is allowed to be compromised because of compromised remuneration offers, an unfavourable precipitating effect will materialise; effectiveness and efficiency will be compromised, which in turn results in compromised overall business and profit scores in the longer run - that is the holistic link.
Conclusion:
Success in putting the right people in the right jobs begins with the appointment of the chief executive and his key officers based on prowess level, such as their IQ, EQ, proficiency of the business, experience, assessment acumen etc. First things first, the board of the corporation concerned must initiate a sound standard operating procedure incorporating qualification criteria, interview approach and selection of candidates for each vital position, especially senior management personnel. Next, the right chief executive must be appointed to take care of the macro business requirements. Only the right chief executive knows how to identify the right type of key officers for the right roles. And only the right key officers know the right make of subordinates they want for effective implementation. If the top officers are the right ones, the entire manpower deployment should be entrenched in sound order, and optimism of the entity heading to the right direction is at hand - that is the positive domino impact.
The endeavour of putting the right people in the right jobs is profound. The board and top executives of a corporation need to move out of the common think box of normal norms. They need to shift their paradigm for a more holistic view on manpower engagement and deployment. I shall end my sharing with another prose for your ponder:
Management entails people and their roles under you. Administration entails processes, procedures, documents and issues in your jurisdiction of responsibility and accountability Only if the management endeavour (of people) is in right order, will the administration flow be in right order.
(Note: The contents are based on my personal experiences and observations in the corporate world, first as a corporate officer until my retirement a few years ago, and now as a freelance consultant. I invite critiques from readers who do not concur with my views.)
COST OF LIVING: SINGAPORE VS MALAYSIA
IS THE COST
OF LIVING IN SINGAPORE REALLY HIGHER THAN IN MALAYSIA?
Malaysia.
Malaysians at large form their fallacious perception based on four premises:
1. The conversion rate of the Ringgit to Singapore Dollar is highly unfavourable to Malaysians who visit Singapore because of the rising appreciation of the latter currency. At the time of
writing this article, Malaysians have to pay about RM2.70 for S$1.
2. Singapore has already attained developed nation status and also a cosmopolitan nation, thus naturally things are more expensive there.
3. Housing in the island nation is more expensive.
4. Cars are very expensive to own there.
Now, allow me to rebut.
In the first place, one should not make comparisons by using the currency conversion rates. Certainly, a Malaysian visitor to Singapore who calculates back every Singapore Dollar spent to the Ringgit amount will say everything in Singapore is more expensive to him.
Secondly, cost of living should rightly be adjudged by the average income of job categories versus the average prices of goods and services, especially the necessities for sustaining a decent livelihood. Simply put, it is the factor of how much a job will be paid in the currency of the country in question and how much the income earner will have to pay for the normal consumption of goods and services in that country.
I contend a wage earner of a specific vocation who earns in Singapore Dollar and spends in
Singapore Dollar may not be worse off than his Malaysian counterpart earning in Malaysian Ringgit and spending in Malaysian Ringgit. We should also view the scenario of Singapore juxtaposed to the Malaysian capital city of Kuala Lumpur (KL) together with its peripheral townships like Petaling Jaya (PJ) for compatible comparison in terms of wage levels and consumption costs. The other
city entailing similar cost of living as KL in Malaysia is Johor Bahru (JB), the capital of Johor State. JB is situated at the south end tip of peninsular (West) Malaysia, which is separated from Singapore by the very narrow Straits (channel) of Johor.
In KL, PJ or JB, the normal salary of a fresh graduate recruited as executive by a financial
institution is RM2,500. In Singapore, such position will start off at S$3,000 to S$3,500, depending on degree attainment and job scopes. Civil service jobs for fresh graduates also pay higher quantum than in Malaysia. My search through the web revealed that the average salaries in civil service start around the range of $3,100 to $3,700, again depending on degree attainment and job scopes.
Year-end bonus is payable too, if deserving based on individual performance.
I find the average prices of foodstuffs are cheaper there than in Malaysia. I had lunch in
a popular noodle shop in a mall during my recent visit. The prices range from S$3.50 to S$4.50 for different varieties. In food courts, even those sited in commercial areas, normal food prices are about S$5. Similar items served in a coffee shop outlet and hawker centres in KL or PJ now cost RM6 to RM7. Food courts operating in malls and cafes in KL and PJ list prices at least 30 per cent more than coffee shops and hawker centres.
(Going cheap.....in a popular shopping plaza in the busy upmarket Orchard Road/Scotts Road area which draws local and tourist crowd.)
“High class” lifestyles like membership in prime country clubs with golf facilities in Singapore are undeniably costly. The top two posh clubs offer membership at the cost of around S$200,000 to S$260,000 joining fee – the lower fee for locals and the other for foreigners. But many other clubs at affordable membership fees are available. For example, a golf club further away from the city centre offers membership to locals (foreigners not allowed) at joining fee of S$6,500.
A few popular sports clubs patronised by both locals and foreigners admit membership at S$20,000. Let us compare the membership fees of clubs around KL. My check on the web revealed that the non-golf membership of a popular club is available at RM20,000. Transferrable memberships of a golf and country club just out of the PJ area are for sale between RM70,000 and RM80,000. I also
noticed a sale notice of transferrable membership in the webpage of another golf and country club located in KL city being offered at RM190,000. Evidently, exclusive clubs in and around KL are as costly to join as those in Singapore.
Housing seems to be costlier there, albeit may not be in great contrast with Malaysian
residential properties. Let us first compare rental rates. The rental for a modern three-bedroom Housing Development Board (HDB) flat – quality similar to a presentable private apartment in KL - varies from S$2,200 to S$3,000 per month. Three-room private condominiums are higher –
above S$3,000 to S$5,000 in locations outside the city centre, S$7,000 to S$15,000 in prime areas. In KL or PJ, many three-room middle-range apartments or condominiums are available around RM2,000 to RM3,000 per month whereas the higher end ones may fetch RM5,000 or very much above, depending on popularity of locations.
The value of three-room HDB flats varies from S$350,000 to S$500,000 while private condominiums are valued above S$700,000, with those in and near the city centre priced anything above S$1 million. Comparatively, a condominium comprising three rooms and spanning 1,200 sq ft, say in PJ, can easily fetch above RM700,000. Posher ones with updated facilities are valued above RM1 million. Those in the heart of Kuala Lumpur city definitely cost much more.
We may conclude that housing affordability issues faced by middle-class Singaporeans
may not be worse off than their Malaysian counterparts.
Now, let us look at transportation. Cars are undeniably much more expensive to buy in Singapore. A popular Japanese 1.5 litres saloon is available for new ownership at RM77,000 in Malaysia. The same model is sold at S$114,000, inclusive of Certificate of Ownership (COE) for 10 years, in Singapore.
Many Singaporeans do not rely on personal vehicles for commutation in view of the well mapped out Mass Rail Transit (MRT) lines intricately linking to most parts of the island. I took the train from Bukit Batok to Orchard station - 18 stops from end to end. The fare quoted by the ticketing machine was S$2.30. In comparison, the normal fare for the Light Rail Transit (LRT) ride between Taman Bahagia station in PJ and Masjid Jamek station in KL (my frequent points of commutation),
covering 10 stations, is RM2.10.
The bus services network is also another convenient public transport in the island, with sufficient fleets plying in high frequency. Fares are reasonable too. I took bus No 171 from Upper Bukit Timah to Newton, about 45 minutes ride under normal traffic flow (not too sure of the exact distance but approximated it to be about 6 miles or 10 kilometres). My fare was only S$1.50. Even metered taxi fares are more or less at similar levels as in Kuala Lumpur.
Car ownership is not an ultimate necessity for the middle and normal working classes in Singapore since convenient and economical public transport systems have been accepted as efficacious alternatives for daily commutation. To many of them, especially expatriates, the high price of cars is not of concern.
And what about the medical treatment fees charged by hospitals? For simple illustration, let us view two simple surgeries – appendectomy and cataract removal. According to my web search, appendectomy charges vary around the average of S$5,000 to S$7,000 levied by government hospitals. Average charges imposed by private hospitals are around S$15,000 to S$16,000 (one to two bedded room stay). As for day surgery of cataract, government hospitals charge S$1,000 to S$2,000 while in private hospitals the average cost varies between S$3,000 and S$9,000. In KL
or other cities in Malaysia, the quantum for such surgeries may not be less - albeit civil servants, senior citizens and the low income group may be accorded either free services or nominal charged services in government hospitals. Singapore nationals and permanent residents compulsorily participate in healthcare schemes managed by the Central Provident Fund. Treatment costs are
charged to the medical card issued to individuals. Cost is hence not so much an issue to the nationals and permanent residents.
Many economy-minded middle-class Malaysians work in Singapore, stay in JB, own homes in JB, own cars in JB but commute daily for work by the shuttle buses linking the two cities, earn in Singapore Dollar and meet household expenses in Ringgit. Imagine a 35-year-old manager earning S$10,000 a month. At the current exchange rate, that would equate to approximately RM27,000. The young executive could live elegantly with his household on Malaysian soil! This is the advantage of earning Singapore Dollar income and spending Malaysian Ringgit household expenditure. In like mind set, many Singaporeans are looking at JB, especially the new Iskandar development area, to set up homes. Instead of paying S$400,000 to S$500,000 for one HDB flat, they know they can acquire a spacious up market landed property in JB with the same amount of money converted to Ringgit. When the planned MRT extension line to JB materialises, hopefully by 2018, two-way
commutation for both Malaysians and Singaporeans working in Singapore but residing in JB will be an imminent daily affair.
Putting aside the earning power and cost of living, what about the quality of life in Singapore vs Malaysia? The island nation may suit those attracted to modern cosmopolitan environment, in particular the young urban professionals. But due to the “compact” territorial size and intense physical development, the look and feel of life there seems to be a bit homogenous.
KL, in contrast, has better flair. We have Malay kampung (Malay village) environment, like
Kampung Pandan. We also have Chinese new villages sited just outside KL city. We have more traditional food flavours originating from different states operating in KL. We have many eateries open for 24 hours a day or at least past midnight. In any established residential area,
eateries are within easy reach for late supper. Out of the city in the jungle suburbs, are rough terrains ideal for 4-wheel truck adventure enthusiasts to embark on thrilling expeditions. KL is linked to other cities and towns in peninsular Malaysia by connected roads; people in the capital city can frequently go for outings. Anglers looking for fishing spots may not have to go out to sea. They can
instead turn to disused (wild) mining ponds or commercial fishing ponds which are available in the suburbs not far from the city. Or if they are keen to go further distance for the sake of more exciting challenges, then travel to large lakes in other states like Kenyir Lake (in the state of Trengganu), Perdu Lake (in the state of Kedah), Temenggor Lake (in the state of Perak) where fishing boats are available for hire. The nearest coastlines for outward sea fishing on larger boats serve yet another alternative. Those preferring a rustic lifestyle can run orchards or fish farms in the suburbs.
Summary: My personal contention, based on the presentation above, is that the cost of living in Singapore VS in KL may not differ much. Again, bear in mind people working in Singapore are remunerated in Singapore Dollar at averagely higher wage levels. Thus, with reasonably priced necessities, the normal means of livelihood may not be costlier than their counterparts living in KL. For those who do not mind an ambience leaned toward homogeneity, perhaps they will find
the small city nation palatable for stay-in.
Note to readers: If your opinions do not concur with mine, please feel free to share and post your comments.
