KM : Has it Faded Away?

As we are drawing closer to the end of 2007, I thought it will be a good idea to dedicate this last entry for the year on an issue that was really hot at the beginning of the year but has over the months simmered down so much that it is no longer in the popular lexicon. I am referring to Knowledge Management.

Knowledge Management (KM) used to be such a buzz word. Numerous seminars, workshops and conferences were held to decipher and understand what it is to be a Knowledge organization and how it impacts the length and breath of the organization’s business processes, human capital and strategic outlook. Even during my training / consulting programs, there will inevitably be somebody who mentions KM during our discussions and case study reviews.

So, what has happened to KM since then? Well, the way I see it, organizations that showed a keen interest in KM can be divided into 3 distinct groups : Those that showed interest but lacked the wherewithal to translate this new understanding into tangible results (which in due course killed off even the initial interest in KM); those that viewed KM as a passing interest; and those that saw a competitive advantage and promptly instituted the necessary systems and processes to benefit from KM.

To me, KM was not a fad nor was it a new invention. At best, it was a ‘dis-covery’ of an age old knowledge that we should do what we are best at and that there must be a way to codify and transfer the knowledge that we have for continuity. The age of artisans lived the KM way as did the age of industrialization; each in its own unique way assisted or limited by the prevailing technology existing then. Yet, in the age of ICT people found there to be a need to rediscover KM and take a fresh look at it all over again.

Organizations have always been about ‘knowledge’ and I dare say they will continue to be so. Knowledge is the bedrock upon which Rockefeller built his empire and on which Tony Fernandez is building his. Knowledge is what makes Toyota the number one automotive company on the planet and knowledge is also what makes Ikea such a loved name. Each has leveraged on it’s knowledge to build what the consumers want, sell at a price the consumers desire and innovate as per the fickle taste of consumers. Technology and ICT were merely enablers. I think it is worth repeating : Tech and ICT are merely enablers.

In my own OD model, I have devoted an entire process for KM which I termed Knowledge Edge. Managing knowledge is one thing but using it for competitive edge is entirely another. I suspect many organizations are probably adept at the former not the latter.

Now, lets look at a quick case in point; McDonald's. There was a time when McDonald outlets opened and closed for the day just like shopping centres : 10am-10pm. There were a few outlets here and there that were open till ‘late’ – 11 pm! Today, McD is a 24 hour operation with big screen TV and live soccer matches. Wait a minute, isn’t that just like our mamak shops? Yes it is and that’s precisely the point. The youngsters who hop into a McD for burger and fries end up later at a mamak joint because the mamak joint is open 24 hours with soccer matches thrown in for good measure. The dramatic urbanization of many parts of the country has brought about a 24-hour culture whereby the city practically never sleeps. Malaysians being Malaysians, food is the greatest time-filler. Hence McD is riding on this. Knowledge Edge at its best.

Now, lets look at another case as a contrast. Through some personal contacts in a major housing developer in the Klang Valley, I got to know quite a bit about the challenges faced by this company. These challenges can be broadly categorized into 1. Customer dissatisfaction. 2. Surprisingly high defect rates and 3. Poor sales. I was told further that other than chastising the employees for poor sales and dwindling market share, the leaders of this organization never once got their sales people, marketing people and engineering people together for any meaningful discussion. The one rare occasion when all were present in the same room, it was a session of ‘do exactly as I tell you’. It seems that the developer is targeting high end buyers and hence has branched out into high end housing and condominiums which are exclusively branded and marketed. This of course will attract the top 5 percent of the Klang Valley population. At the same time, this high end clients are a stickler for quality and extremely fussy when what they have paid for does not meet their high expectations. The brunt of their complaints and demands are directed at the ‘customer service’ department which is nothing more than an ad-hoc collection of clerks, secretaries or whoever takes a call or bumps into an irate buyer!

Ironically, these motley crew of ‘customer service’ team has come to learn quite a bit about the likes and dislikes of their customers such as the preferred flooring style, pool design, furnishings and even how the squash court should have been designed. The tragedy here is that nobody in this organization, least of all its leaders, have bothered to capture and transmit these knowledge in a way that becomes it competitive edge.

It would help a great deal to make Malaysian companies more competitive in the coming years if business leaders begin to realize that every organization is made up of a living, breathing knowledge structure. The most critical job responsibility of a Malaysian CEO in the coming years will be to find a way how these diverse knowledge structures under her command can synergize for the benefit of the entire organization.

Well friends, I wish you all a blessed Christmas and a great New Year. I am going for a much needed holiday and will be back on the 2nd of January 2008.

Cheers!

Managing Diversity

In the last 3 weeks I have spent close to 12 days down south in the manufacturing hub of Senai, Johor. During my programs there, I got to know many managers and supervisors alike. Apart from the usual issues that were discussed, they also touched on the issues relating to managing workers from other countries. As I have also come across this issue in other parts of the country, I thought it will be a good idea to look into this in this entry.

Foreign labour is already part of the Malaysian economic tapestry. The pros and cons of this, we will leave it to the politicians and the policy makers. For us, it is enough to know that they are here and we need to manage them to achieve our organization's objectives. But how different or similar is managing foreign workers compared to managing our own?

Take the case, of a group of foreign manufacturing line-operators who had such a 'bad' body odour that their Malaysian supervisor had to buy body deodorants for them or the example of a Malaysian manager who had to deal with requests for dangdut songs at part of the company's piped-music in the cafeteria.

But I think, the differences run deeper than that. If we take for example an Indian national who is a IT programmer, his social and psychological self will be very much different from us Malaysians. And, he will be more acutely aware of his socio-psychological differences when he is away from his home just as we do when we are in a foreign land. Similarly a Nepalese guard or a Vietnamese line worker will also feel these differences. A Malaysian Chinese will be entirely understanding if told not to bring pork from home into the cafeteria but for a Vietnamese worker from a village 300 km away from Hanoi, she would have no clue as to why she is being forbidden from eating something that is staple to her diet all these years. And, when this instruction is delivered with a certain sense of disdain and venom,it makes future positive relationship with her that much more difficult.

In my experience, most managers learn to deal with these differences on a trial and error basis. The ones who are failing miserably or are still unable to handle this diversity are those who:

1. view all foreign workers as homogeneous and they have one homogeneous characteristic and that is 'they are not Malaysians'.

2. has a superiority complex over these foreign workers.

3. feel that they are already burdened enough with their work without having to accept and handle cultural differences of and between foreign workers.

4. refuse to accept that these foreigners are not here merely for the money and that they also expect respect, trust, self development, a balanced work-life equation and social well being.

5. too much stereotyping of the country of origin.

6. a general lack of understanding and appreciation of the globalized nature of today's economic structure.

7. a racist and a bigot ( I have come across a few of this).


I am troubled when I sometimes hear Malaysian managers speak of these foreign workers as a temporary passing phenomena or as a necessary evil. The future of every nation in the coming years will depend on local AND much more on foreign talents that it is able to attract. Increasingly, these talents are coming from less sexier countries. My advise : Get used to it.

Proton Stays Single!

After months of retracted discussions, offers and counter ofers, denials and reluctant admissions, the Malaysian government has finally decided that Proton will end all discussions with all foreign parties that were touted as possible 'strategic' partners to the national car company.

The immediate reaction from the market is all too familar of course. Proton shares dipped and analysts and observers are all not too happy with this sudden turn-about.

Lets take a closer look at this latest addition to the colourful history of Proton sans the emotional baggage.

As it stands, Proton will continue to function as it has always done previously .ie. it will be a sovereign car maker. This, according to the government is because of the following reasons:

1. Proton has increased its market share from from about 20% plus to over 30% now and is well placed to increase it further
2. The Persona is doing well and more new models are on the way
3. Proton has entered the Chinese and Iranian markets.
4. Hence, Proton is strong enough now and can avoid a fire sale situation.

To be honest, Proton is definitely in a much better position than it was a few months ago. If you remember, I wrote about the Persona and said that it was indeed a good car. So, its not suprising that the Persona is doing well. However, I also said that one new model maketh no new future. May I also add that breaking into the Chinese and for that matter Iranian markets maketh no new future either. At the risk of oversimplyfying the issue, let me just say that these two markets are huge but extremely unpredictable. Will Proton be able to withstand any upheavels in these two markets?

Every major car manufacturer knows that the success of each new model is a hit-and- run story. To have a series of top selling back to back models is not impossible but not something that can be taken for granted either. Perodua did well with its models because it entered a market segment which at that time was less crowded and was able to carve out a nice little market share for it self unlike Proton that competes in a highly competitive market segment.

Also, what about the huge financial outlay needed to develop fresher models? The technology aspect of this is another matter all together.

Finally, have we forgoten the competition from India, Thailand and China? Can Proton single handedly withstand these competitions which will inevitably be about quality, price and volume?

On the other hand, I must admit that I am less pessimistic about Proton than most others simply because Proton has two critical advantages : huge production capacity and it owns Lotus. If these two advantages are leveraged we just might be able to have another world beater from Malaysia. The only question is that the whole Lotus issue is unclear. Also, I would suspect that Proton needs 2 new models next year. The Saga replacement is targeted somewhere in the first few months of 2008. I think Proton should not wait until 2009 for the proposed MPV. It should do that in 2008. This will give confidence to the market of Proton's seriousness in avoiding past mistakes.

Finally, I would also suggest that Proton look to India. Every major car maker is looking to India. In fact Suzuki is back on the automotive radar courtesy of its Indian market.

There is no turning back now for Proton. The next time it invites another car maker for strategic tea-talk, it has better be in good shape! We Malaysians will always wish the best for Proton. But, we will not be so forgiving anymore with our power-windows either!

Reality Check!

To all of you good people out there, may this year's Deepavali bring forth blessed joy, wealth and peace. Its going to be an excellent celebration this time around as far as Malaysia as a nation is concerned. Going by the tone of the Youth and Woman's wings of UMNO, much emphasis will be placed on building a united nation to withstand the relentless onslought of global competition and other forces of change in all spheres of life. So, I suspect this Deepavali will be a base to build a feel good atmosphere for all Malaysians after a year of racial verbal bloodletting. This will lay the groundwork for the next general election.

By now, you may already feel the difference in my writing. Yes! I did begin this article with a general broad-stroke of our nation's socio-political landscape. As you all know, I am very apolitical. However, I have a reason to dwell into that area momentarily this time around. The reason is this, everything said and done, we as a nation will always go back to unnesecary bickering and much time and energy will be wasted on trivial issues while our competitors are beating us left and right at every corner.

To make my point, I pulled out two newspaper articles. I am going to review these 2 articles this time around. On November 1st the NST in Biz News reported that Malaysia is 21st most competitive nation from a pool of 131 nations. The following are the rankings of a few other significant nations : Singapore (7), South Korea (11), Hong Kong (12), Taiwan (14). China was at 34 and India at 48.According o that report, even though Malaysia fell 2 rungs from 2006, we are still doing well on most other counts.

On 9th April I happened to read an intresting article also in the NST with the title Ace up India's Sleeve. Allow me to quote some satistics from this article : 18.5% of the the total workforce of Accenture are in India. Similarly IBM has 14.6%, Aviva 12.8% and Citigroup 6.7%. In the case of IBM " Indian teams now autonomously develop software solutions from start to finish for global clients". AND, it was reported that by 2010 India will lack 500,000 egineers.

How long do you think a nation such as India in today's economic and business environment will take to close the gap with our position as the 21st most competitive nation? Where was India 15 years ago? Get my point?

Well, think about this while munching into your muruku and 'whacking' some tosai and mutton. Cheers everybody. I will be busy next week with my program for RHB Insurance on Transformational Leadership. Till we meet again, Happy Deepevali and Happy holidays.

Brand Building

What do Google and Starbucks have in common? Lets see now.. they are both hugely successful, they are both valuable brands and they are both helmed by visionaries. There is of course this one other similarity that many are not aware of...they are both misers when it comes to advertising. Comparatively, both Google and Starbucks spend very little in advertsising in their respective industrie. Yet, they are growing and returning uninterrupted returns to their shareholders. What's the secret?

The secret is simply that they have a winning product and a winning value proposition which build more goodwill than any slick adverstising campaign can ever produce.

This is not to say A&P is not important. In fact sooner or later even Google and Starbucks will have to up their A&P budget when competition and/or consumer trends shifts. The point however is that a winning product-value offering will have a greater impact on long term sustainable return than merely a bombardment of A&P campaigns. The most valuable brand today is probably Coca Cola. I am going to be a heretic for saying this but I am goig to say this anyway : How much is the value of brand Coca Cola is the result of its inherent value proposition as opposed to its consistent and powerful imagery and association in the minds of the consumers. Let me put this way : There are some movies that are popular because of the hype surrounding it while there are others that become great hits simply because it captured the hearts and steadily won viewers. See my point?

Take Phuket for example. In terms of tourism, Phuket stands heads over shoulders above many other destinations in Asia. The thing about Phuket is that it offers something for everybody. It offers a unique blend of experience for both the leisure and buiness travellers that it has created a brand image without even trying. Even a devastating tsunami could not keep it down for too long.

So, Google and Starbucks have build a reputation that is a direct result of their product-value proposition. This is not, as we can see now, soley dependent on A&P.

_____________________________________________

Arrifullah of Petronas Fertilizer Kedah : I am glad you enjoyed my write-ups on Proton and MAS. By the way, Datuk Seri Idris Jala recently clarified that the survey on mealboxes involved 35,000 passengers on 383 flights and 91% of the customers were satisfied with the mealboxes. I am happy to see that MAS has provided more details on the survey. Still, I am not sure what 'satisfied' means. What does 91% 'satisfied' response means if the other two choices are 'excellent' and 'great'

Surveys, especially when carried out by interested parties sometimes tends to prove what have been decided rather than to help in making the right decision.

Anyway, it has been reported that the mealboxes are on a trial run until the end of the year and more customer feedback is expected.

My hope, as always, is for Malaysian businesses to make the right service oriented decisions. That, for me, is the only winning formula.

To Serve or Not to Serve?

There is an interesting 'conversation' going on in the readers'opinion page of the NST these last couple of weeks. It all started a few weeks earlier when a frequent Malaysian Airlines customer wrote-in to remind Malaysia Airlines (MAS) to not loose focus by competing with low cost carriers and to stick to full service offerings. This was followed by another reader who complained about MAS providing only mealboxes for domestic and short haul international destinations. This was followed by a reply from MAS that their survey had indicated that MAS customers are satisfied with the mealboxes and it is comparable with 15 other international airlines. This was followed by a letter from another MAS customer who questioned many aspects of the reply and insisted that either MAS bucks up or he will take his business elsewhere!

According to the reply from MAS, the survey found that customers are quite happy with the mealboxes. Its not clear how many respondents were involved in this survey or which sectors were covered. Did the respondents say mealboxes are ok, great or one of the 10 things that are ok? It seems customers, during the fasting month found the mealboxes useful as they can 'take-away' for later consumption. What would these very same customers say now when it is no longer the fasting month? Comparable with 15 other international airline standards? Well, lets be clear here. Firstly, just because it is a foreign airline it doesn't mean that it is of international standards. The benchmark for MAS must always be the likes of Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, BA, Lufthansa, Emirates and the like. Secondly, air-travel in the USA and Europe has lost most of its privileged status. Air travel for them is just another mode of transport. In Asia and Malaysia air travel is still considered a status symbol even after the arrival of low cost carriers like AirAsia and Tiger Airways. So, if a Malaysian flies MAS to Kota Kinabalu (2 1/2 hours) instead of AirAsia I can quite safely say that there is still a prestige issue at play here. Otherwise, why would he /she pay so much more for a MAS ticket when a much cheaper alternative is available? Now, with that purchase, what does he/she expect? Full service treatment of course! That means what was previously offered if not better.

Lets look at some of the possible reasons why MAS would want to take this path. Having pre-prepared mealboxes instead of the usual full service offerings together with its utensils will reduce take-off weight of the plane which will translate into reduced fuel consumption ( a huge cost savings) and increased RPK (revenue per kilo metre). There will also be a reduced need for a big team of cabin crew which once again reduces cost and increases revenue.

So, its all about cost reduction. I can appreciate that. Idris Jala said he will do a business turn around and as far as I am concerned, such cost reductions are absolutely critical for him.

However, what is the impact on MAS over the long term? The following 3 possibilities present themselves:

1. MAS customers get used to this new service offerings and are pacified by an increase in service standards in other aspects, or
2. MAS customers find little differentiation with low cost carriers on those routes and switch their alliance, or
3. Regional airlines fill the gap left by MAS in the full service category once the open sky policies are in effect.

The thing is this, service and the resultant customer experience is more a function of 'perception' than real product/service experience. For example, Japanese watch brands like Citizen make great watches but the perception is that Swiss brands are a class of their own. How would a current Porche owner feel if Porche starts selling RM100,000.00 models in Malaysia? It is a precept ion game isn't?

Good things have started to happen for Malaysia Airlines. However, lets also remember what one modern business sage have said : "Good is the greatest enemy of Great".

We would like to see a great Malaysia Airlines. You with me?

That Magical Thing Called Branding

I read an interesting piece of research news today. It seems a research was carried out in Scotland to compare the effectiveness of cheap running shoes compared with their more expensive rivals. The data which was scientifically recorded by a small back pack, apparently showed that the cheap ones are quite as effective as the expensive ones in absorbing shocks and keeping pressure away from the knees and other joints. But what actually caught my curiosity was an expect of the findings that the researchers mentioned only in passing. It seems, when asked to comment on the effectiveness of the shoes, the 43 volunteers judged each pair of shoes on very subjective terms. They can hardly see much difference between these shoes. The catch is this : The labels of these shoes were masked with tape. So, the volunteers did not know what brand (hence the price range) of the shoes they were using.

Now, I wonder if they knew the brand that they were wearing would that have changed the way they responded about each pair? Would they have given a more favourable feedback on say, Nike compared with a cheaper and unknown brand?

In all likely hood, I believe if they had known the brand, their perception would have been dramatically altered. After all that is what good branding is all about isn't it?

I am passionate about cars. To be more precise, I am passionate about how each manufacturer brand their models. Recently I noticed a Proton Satria Neo side by side to a similar looking and same in category American make and to be honest, Satria Neo looked much better. In fact it looked sturdier and solid all around. Immediately (as it often happens) my thought wondered to the branding behind each of the model. What does the Satria Neo stand for? What does its rival stand for? What image do I show if I drive a Satria Neo?

You may not realize this but Audi is actually in the same league as Merc and BMW. In Europe these brands compete with each other. In Malaysia, Audi is catching up but still peeople always look at the Merc as the signal of their arrival on the corporate/VIP scene. However, the Audi is creating an image for itself as the embodiment of 'dare to loose' , 'class', 'the hell with the known' image. If you drive a Merc you have arrived (in the traditional sense). If you drive an Audi, you have arrived trail blazing!

So, how do I arrive in a Satria Neo? I suppose Proton expects me to figure that out!

There is very little branding. As the Scotish research shows, two products may be of equal quality but then selling them is not merely about quality as it also involves perception and perception is all about branding. Why else do you think Proton Arena is doing so well in Autralia as the Jumpbuck while it is a flop on our own soil?

Ok, lets look tourism in this context. If you travel to Italy or France, you are romantic, cultured and stylish. If you travel to India, Tibet, Nepal you are spiritual, searching and soulful. If you travel to Cambodia you are adventureous. Malaysia?

See, where is the branding?

Not too long ago, I shared with you guys about my visit to the pre-launch of the Persona. I hope by now you have had the opportunity to view the car. Quite a few are on the roads now. Don't be fooled by its similarity to the Gen2. Both use the same platform. But the Persona is no doubt, in my mind, a superiors car.

If you remember, I also said in that article that I am not so sure whether the Persona alone can help to turn around Proton. The reasons, as I have said, is simply because the problems at Proton are much more deep set than the management would like to believe. I just read a wonderful piece in the Edge (October 8) by Leela Barrock entitle "Malaysia Needs to Play Catch-up". She explored the sad truth about how far behind we are in the automotive industry. The following are some of the interesting points that I gathered from Leela Barrock.

22 years ago when we started our natoinal car project China, India, and Thailand were not even anywhere on the automotive map. The Japanese and Koreans were struggling to win over North America and Europe. Vietnam? Vietnam who?

Today, Toyota is the number 1 automotive company in the world. Hyundai is relocating its entire Atos line to South India to be exported to 65 countries. The Getz is next in line. Thailand is the world's second largest manufacturer of pick-up trucks. In 2005, Australia exported 140,000 vehicles although it doesnt have an Austalian car brand per se. Vietnam is the next blued-eyed boy for car manufacturers.

Proton had a 22 years lead time. But.....

So you see, a new model maketh no new future. The sooner Proton admits this the better. Whether VW is going to make a difference is another matter. I would still want to have the Proton as a Malaysian brand name when my children buy their first car. Why not?

All is needed is Change. Change at Proton. Now!

Gary Hamel in his latest work entitled 'The Future of Management' asserts that newer and more effective ways of managing people will be the competitive advantage of the future for companies. For those of you who have attended my Shifting Moments program, you will see that this is similar to what I have said many times : Organizations must develop a winning culture as that is much more difficult to be copied compared to a winning strategy.

I have written in my articles before of 200 year old companies that are still going strong today. Yes, they may have continuously reinvented themselves. They may have changed winning strategies after winning strategies. They may even have changed their entire business focus. Yet, I find it difficult to believe that all these were done despite their culture. How will a company continuously reinvent it self if there was a culture of blaming and a fear of risks? How could a company stay at the peak of its industry by merely having a winning strategy?

What is a winning culture? A winning culture is an organization's state of being. It is it's DNA. This DNA will determine how it creates, how it serves, how it rewards and most importantly it will determine how it sees it self under the sun. A winning culture is therefore akin to the soul of an organization. This soul/DNA is formed through a combination of chance and design. The Malaysian Rangers for an example is an organization that is rich with history and has a winning culture. It's DNA was influenced by the fact that it was born and bred during the Malayan Emergency. At the same time, its winning culture is also a result of the winning strategic designs of its earliest commanders. Similarly, NASA was born as a reaction towards the unexpected Soviet-led space race and yet it is as powerful at is today also because of its winning strategic designs. This DNA of winning culture takes time to form. we may be able to create a winning culture in a day through sheer empirical analysis or a burst of creative insight but not a winning culture.

What do you think will happen to Malaysia Airlines once Idris Jala leaves. Or, what do you think will happen to TM now that its supremo is being linked to the banking industry? If these organizations' success today are the results of their wining strategy, there is A huge possibility that their successes will end with these two towering individuals. If on the other hand, it was the result of a winning culture than their successes will continue no matter what. One is a short term share-holder judged success while the other will be judged by history as the winning formula.

But then, how are CEOs rewarded... for a winning strategy or winning culture?

Us vs Them

One of the things that strike me most in many organizations is that there is always a Us vs Them mentality between the staff and the HR department. Whenever, the employees speak of the HR department, it is always 'them. The opposite is also sometimes true.

Employees should realize that HR is for them and with them AND they too function in the confines of organizational objectives and restrictions. The HR department is not a policing department ( I sincerely hope no HR manager in this country is still playing that antiquated role!). Employees will have a better chance of getting what they want if the keep the following things in mind:

1. Be reasonable
2. Know that the grass is always seem greener the other side
3. Working with HR will take them further than antagonizing them
4. Take a keen interest in the workings of the HR department
5. Make it know to the organization that they expect nobody less than a world-class HR manager.

In the same breath, I also sincerely hope that HR will view their role in a different light. HR is often the first point of contact for the staff in dealing with higher management. Inevitably, HR is viewed as the gatekeeper of the higher management and trust becomes an issue. HR should be seen on the ground with the staff. Be with them, lunch with them. Be visible and be at close range.

It was never easy for the HR and it will never be with a workforce diversity that is mind-boggling. But don't for a moment negate the functions of HR. Companies will have to do that at their on peril.

Organizational DNA

Last week, I was with 2 groups of some of the most eager learners I have ever known. They are from a company that is the guardian to one of Malaysia's most loved brands : Jaya Jusco. I salutue you, the great people of AEON Malaysia.

This entry is for you guys and I hope to discuss further the story of Nanjing Automobile Company.

As I said the true blue British brand, MG and Rover is now owned by a relatively new and unknown entity called the Nanjing Automobile Company. They may be big in China but as you guys said rightly : Nanjing who?

Do you also know that Europe's steel powerhouse now belongs to a certain Mittal from India who makes England his home? Or did you know that Tata of India is considering to buy another British icon, the Jaguar. Full circle indeed.

The question is this : How old are these target companies. Very old is the answer. They have gone through 2 world wars, numerous political, social and economic revolutions. They have witnessed some of the most dramatic changes in consumerism's relentless changes in tastes and trends. AND, they have always been under the guardianship of one culture. Today, entirely different cultures are thier new owners. I mean, Rover a Chinese owned company or Jaguar an Indain owned one? Well, thats the way of the world today folks. But, what happens next. To be more precise, what will happen to the DNA of these organizations. Will people look at them as still Rover or MG or will they look at it differently? Will their loyal Anglo-proud customers feel betrayed? Will the new owners have the discipline not to re-engineer the DNA of these organizations? What happens if they do? What happens if they don't?
What will happen to the brand's intrinsic value and characteristics?

Will they survive another 100 years?

I believe that an organization too has a certain DNA that keeps it evolving. This DNA becomes entrenched over time and it becomes something buried deep in the heart of the organization which in turn affects how it does business. Look at Honda. What do you think it's DNA like? One of creativity and innovation before profit? Yes. Otherwise they would not have been spending billions of dollars developing the Honda jet. Now, what will happen to this DNA if a purely business investor from Russia buys over Honda? Would Honda stop evolving? Would its DNA face a slow and steady remodification?

So many questions. I am going to sleep on them and probably keep the answers for another entry.

By the way, after our last session, a thought flashed through my mind: Isn't it strange that Seiko and Alba have not bought over any Swiss brands? Or have they?

Do Engineers Need Management Skills Training?

It was great to be back at Maju Holdings. As in all previous occasions when I had the good fortune to meet the staff of Maju in my training programs, last week's group did not fail my expectations. They were energetic, lively and passionate. The highly technical and tough issue of Managing Change was discussed and debated in a open and professional manner. Syabas ladies and gentleman of Maju! One of the issues that we discussed was whether an engineer who has been made to be a manager need to go for management skills training? If you recall, that's what MBAs were created for isn't it? The very first MBAs were in response to demands from manufacturing companies in the US and Europe that were slowly experiencing leadership change. At that time, the founders and/or original movers of some of the most well known organizations were gradually being replaced by their long time staffs who for the most part were involved directly in the manufacturing/product component of the business. It appeared perfectly logical for Henry Ford, for example, to designate his chief technical men or his chief engineers to take over some of the key positions in the company. After all who better to run the company than the guys who knew the product like the back of their hands? Once these technical wizards ascended the power structure of their respective organizations, they inevitably realized that managing a group of production workers as the CEO or GM was a completely different ball game compared to managing the day-to-day running of the production line. They needed much more than their technical expertise. Hence, the MBAs were developed as a bridging for them to enter the world of management. Of course, over the years the MBAs have taken on an entirely different appearance. So, the answer is yes. Engineers and other technical experts going into management functions should be exposed to management skills training. It should be something that they experience way before they take the hot seat not after the fact. That way, they will have more time to internalize and find their footing before actually taking on the real responsibilities of a manager.

Talent Warning!

In one of my entries recently I talked about what I thought would present it self as Malaysia's greatest challenge in the coming years. I said that that challenge would be how to close the gap between the available talent pool in Malaysia with the demands of the new economy in the coming years.

On July 27 and 28, the Customer Relationship Management & Contact Centre Association Malaysia (CCAM)had a CEO round table in conjunction with its national conference with the theme " Empowering the Industry to be the Next Global Catalyst".

The Edge reported on the conference on 20th August with a write-up on the discussion. Sam Haggag, the president of Contact Centre Association of Singapore put it bluntly when he said "...The technology is in Malaysia. The infrastructure is here too. The challenge is talent".

It is amazing how at any given time, a government policy maker can go on for 2 hours talking about the efforts needed to make Malaysia a competitive global economy without once mentioning the word talent! What do they think will make Malaysia a 'competitive global economy'? More buildings and infrastructure? Why is the Multimedia Supercorridor is no longer in our popular lexicon? The reason is simple.We simply don't have enough talent in these critical areas to sustain our grand plans. Despite our farsightedness to piggy back on the bandwagon of the ICT based economy we failed to see that this new economy is based entirely on talent. We don' even have to have the financial resources or infrastructure. Others with these resources will line up at our door knocking feverishly to come in. That is, if we have the talent. Ask the Indians and the Filipinos!

For example, the petrochemical industry in Malaysia is already facing a talent shortage so acute that drastic measures are needed to stem the outflow of our precious talent to newer players in the industry.

The way to develop talent is dependent on developing a performance based culture. One that is unforgiving of poor performance and reluctance for continuous change and willing to make 3 times more investments on people development.

As we celebrate our 50th Independence Day, let it be made clear that the road ahead is tougher than what our forefathers would have seen way back in 1957. Happy Merdeka!

May God bless our nation and our people.

A New Car Maketh No New Future!

The national automotive company, Proton just revealed its latest model called the Persona with the tag line "our pride and joy". I had the opportunity to view it a few hours prior to its official launch. It looked good and priced right.

Almost all media reports and review of the car came with a prophesy : This model will save Proton.

Well, that is for time to prove right (or otherwise).

The fact is, many companies in the automotive industry has done the same to rescue themselves. Some has been successful while others not so. The ones that were successful did not only come out with a winning new car model but also developed a winning new 'mental model'. Remember Nissan before Ghosn? That's right. He came up with not only newer models but also developed a new mentality and culture for Nissan Japan. If anybody thinks that Toyota is the biggest auto company in the world today because it managed to have a string of top sellers, has got it all wrong. Toyota is where it is today because it had a mental model that facilitated the production of winning models. The world renowned TPS (Toyota Production System) is at the crux of it, a winning mental model that was translated into a winning quality and production system.

The new Persona looks good and should be a hit in the local market. But, the problem with Proton is much deeper than poor selling models. It is about its worldview or rather the worldview that the powers that be wants it to have. Proton needs to be run as a business entity. Its people should be made to realize that the country owes them nothing. The world is not interested in its history but only what it can do now and five, ten, fifteen years down the road. It needs to develop new models at every level of its business process.

Go see the Persona. You will like it.

MOTIVATION FOR PEAK PERFORMANCE

Hi! People,

Recently I conducted a public program on Motivation for Peak Performance. The following is an extract from the module that I developed for the program participants.

We live today in a world of great change and uncertainty which are fast becoming a fact of life. It is easy for us to fall into the trap of defeatist thinking and pessimistic attitude but to be truly successful and to have a truly meaningful personal and professional life; we need to rise against the mob of negativity that surrounds us both at home and at the work place.

Look around us today and we will find many Malaysians who have risen against all odds to enjoy great success. Tony Fernandes, Idris Jala, Chef Wan, Nicol David and Lim Keng Liat are examples of those who have left a mark in our collective consciousness. While these individual success stories are easily identifiable, there is also another kind of success story in Malaysia which is not widely known. This is the success story of Malaysian brands such as Maxis, Royal Selangor Pewter, Astro, Clara and Naza which have taken the region by storm. All of these success stories are scripted by individuals who have that extra edge in peak performance, creativity and problem solving. These individuals are evidence enough to show us that academic qualifications, financial standing, technical know-how and ‘friends in high places’ will only take one so far in life. Beyond that, we have to call forth a different kind of skill and knowledge : We have to tap into our personal reservoir of mastery and skills that transcends academic and even professional qualifications.


Understanding how to motivate ourselves is a great way to begin our journey towards a more energized, motivated and high performance self.
All these, of course, begins with changing our thinking pattern :

“ When you change your thinking,
you change your beliefs;
When you change your beliefs,
You change your expectations;
When you change your expectations,
You change your attitude;
When you change your attitude,
you change your behavior;
When you change your behavior,
You change your performance;
When you change your performance,
YOU CHANGE YOUR LIFE.”.



“We know what we are but know not what we may be”
-- William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) --

Have a great week ahead.

Congratulations IRAQ!

Iraq is the new Asian Cup Champions! With their nation burning to the ground, the Iraqi national team displayed grit and sheer determination to win the 2007 Asian Cup. The Saudi players played their hearts out too but not nearly as much as the Iraqis. The Iraqis had fire in their eyes. They were determined. They wanted to win so badly as they knew a victory would be a sweet reprieve for their people back at home who are long due for some sort of victory, a feel good factor if you may. And, they did just that. I was cheering them all the way in my living room!

At the time of this entry, there are no terrorist attacks on the celebrating Iraqis anywhere in Iraq. This of course is a relief as hundreds have died in bombings across Iraq while celebrating their team's progress in the tournament.

It seems, every cross section of the Iraqi populace; the Shias from the south and the Kurdish from the north have all come out in jubilation to celebrate this success. Momentarily, animosity has been forgotten. Just for a flickering second, Iraqis would have experienced what their ancient land would be like if they all got their heads and hearts together. Alas, I know that soon enough once the euphoria dies down, Iraqis will get back to their old ways of feuding and giving their oppressors more reasons to stay on.

Just last week a good friend, Tim, whose training program I had the privilege of observing said that the longest distance between any point on this planet is between the head and the heart!How true. What a difference it makes when we see people from our hearts and not with our heads. What a difference it makes when we manage our organizations from the heart. The Iraqis are celebrating right now because they have found in their hearts something to celebrate about. The 'reasons' for their animosity towards each other are still there...in their heads. But, for this few hours at least, their hearts will rule. They will come together. They will rejoice.They will feel one. And, they will get stronger (in football terms).

I often try to get this point across in my various training programs. I have a brand new example to illustrate it now.

Bravo Iraq!

The Talent War

I am convinced that the real challenge for Malaysia in the next 10 to 15 years will be talent retention rather than talent creation.

Don't take me wrong, I am not saying that we have produced enough talent in all our industries. Far from it. We still lack in that department compared with our regional competitors such as Singapore and Thailand. My argument is this : the problem with Malaysia is never with its ability to produce talent but with its ability to retain talent. As far as I am concerned, talent identification and development for a nation of our size is not a problem at all. Much of the infrastructure and programs to develop talent are already in place. With this and many more plans in the pipeline, we can easily produce the talent we need. Take for example the recent student exchange program between Malaysia and the venerable Infosys of India. For weeks, the mainstream media have been singing praises of how the exchange program has benefited the students. The students themselves have gone on record to say that they have learned more in 3 weeks in Infosys than in 1 year back in our campuses.They felt that now they have a much better understanding of the uses for the knowledge that they have gained. The minister was so amazed to see the changes in the students' behavior and attitude that he took time off to attend their 'graduation. Now, here we are with a bunch of young minds who are obviously very much excited about the prospects ahead for them in their chosen field. The question is are we prepared to do all that it takes to keep them on our shores with the right remuneration, support and assistance or will they be lured away across the causeway.

While, we should continue to invest in talent identification and development we should also concurrently take the necessary steps to retain that talent. The Americans, Indians and the Chinese know this very well. While the Indian IITs and IIMs churned out thousands of world class talents, the country it self did not do enough to retain that valuable talent.They ended up in America. The Chinese universities and polytechnics produced thousands of brilliant minds but where did they end up? At Palo Alto! Needless to say, the trend is reversing but these two countries have already lost 3 generations of its brightest and most talented.

Malaysia is at a state of emergency as far our competitiveness is concerned. There seems to be a general lack of realization that we have over the last 10 years lost our competitiveness to neighbouring countries. Low production cost is no longer a viable leveraging factor. Talent is.

March of the Emperors

I believe it was at the 2006 Oscars that the French made, American produced, Morgan Freeman read documentary called March of The Penguins won the Oscar for best documentary. I watched it on DVD 2 months ago and since then have been so awe struck by these amazing creatures that I have done some research of my own. I have learnt enough of these creatures to convince me that I should share these with my program participants especially during my Team Building and Change Management programs. I developed a creative 2-hour activity based on the Documentary which I have found to be extremely effective to put forward many of the critical points that I want my participants to grasp.

For those of you who have not watched March of the Penguins, allow me to give you a snap-shot of it. The Emperor Penguins are found in the Antarctica. They are bigger than most other penguin breeds. Antarctica is easily the harshest place on earth with the temperature dropping steadily to -50 C during winter. The wind there can reach up to 200 km per hour. The Emperors, it has been found, have been doing something peculiar for thousands of years. Every year, they climb on to the pack ice and walk day and night for more than 70 miles to go to a breeding ground where they will find a mate. This breeding ground is where every one of them were also born! There at the breeding ground, one of nature's most enduring role reversal takes place. After laying the single egg, the female treks back the 70 miles to the ocean to eat while the male Emperor holds the precious egg on its claws (safe from the freezing ground) and protects it from the elements. By the time the egg hatches, the male Emperors would have gone for almost 4 months without any food. They stay huddled throughout the winter. This huddle of theirs is by it self an amazing social structure. Somehow, each one of the thousands in the huddle will be able to get to spend some time in the center of the huddle where it is warmer. They do this to outlast the winter. By then, the female Emperor returns with enough food in her belly to feed the young chick. From then on, they take turns to trek up and down to the ocean to eat and to bring back food for the young chick.

What can we learn from the Emperors? Here is my list:

1. When change happens, keep moving.
2. Leadership is the function of a person not position.
3. Without team-work, we are doomed.
4. Anticipate, act and evaluate.
5. The biggest challenge is not from out there, it's from within.

I hope you have a chance to watch this documentary. The DVD version even comes with a bonus edition which shows how difficult it was to film it in the first place!

March on Emperors!

Managers Are Not Always at Fault; Only Most of the Time!

I often say that a manager is at fault when a valuable employee leaves an organization unexpectedly. Almost always I get asked the question whether it is fair to blame managers when an employee leaves an organization?

It is interesting that over the years I have noted how often people omit the words 'valuable' and 'unexpectedly' when I am asked that question. The point here is this : I am not implying that a manager is to be blamed every time an employee leaves; only when a valuable employee leaves and that too, unexpectedly. Of course the manager shoulders this blame vis a vis the organization. It comes with the job.

Let us now describe who is a valuable employee.
A valuable employee is one who :
1.Continually delivers more than expected.
2. Dares to challenge the status quo for process improvements.
3. Takes ownership of tasks, responsibilities and the outcomes from the tasks and responsibilities.
4. Willing to coach/mentor others AND learn from others
5. Brings new ideas and methods for continuous improvement
6.Has been with the organization long enough and/or has been involved deeply enough in tasks/responsibilities to become a resource person for other employees.
7. Has continually showed passion for self development and the development of others.
8. Has always exhibited values that are complimentary to the organization's values OR has willingly subordinated personal values for the benefit of the overall good of the organization's vision and mission.
9. Has a proven track record of performance excellence, leadership capabilities and change adaptability.
10. Has a reservoir of knowledge, skills and abilities that are yet to be tapped for the benefit of the organization.

Now, why would such a valuable employee leave an organization? The reasons would be :
1. Not properly rewarded for exceptional performance.
2. Not properly recognised for achieving excellence.
3.Creativity and initiative stifled by a bureaucratic and rigid management environment.
4. Not up-dated on the direction of the organization.
5. No clear career development path
6. Suggestions and recommendations made for continuous improvements are seldom followed up or appreciated.
7. Too many broken promises from the management.
8. Lack of job enrichment opportunities.
9. Loss of life balance
10. Natural reasons (these are usually beyond the control of the manager/organization)

Looking at the characteristics of a valuable employee and why he/she may leave an organization, I can't but insist that the bigger part of the blame inevitably falls on the shoulders of the manager vis vis the organization.

How difficult is it to keep such a valuable employee. Not difficult. All that is needed is some creativity. Consider this example : A valuable supervisor of a manufacturing concern approaches his manager with his letter of resignation.The manager decides that this supervisor is too valuable for the organization to loose him. He has a chat with the supervisor and finds out that the reason for his leaving is the lack of salary increment. The manager knows that a salary review is in the books next year based upon the expected increase in profits. But, he knows a promise of salary review next year will not attractive for the supervisor. So, the manager volunteers this information but throws in something else that makes the supervisor think again about moving away and having to start all over again. As the manager can't be 100% sure of the salary review as it is something beyond his control, he offers the supervisor a reduced load of work responsibilities that he feels he would like to forgo in return for the supervisor's willingness to wait for another year. Now, this gives the manager a fair chance of keeping this valuable supervisor (if the salary review materializes) and/or he has time to prepare for any eventualities.

A valuable employee is hard to come by. Hang on to him/her dear managers!

Career Development : Whose Responsibility?

Who is responsible for the career development of an individual? Herself or the organization she works for?

But first, let’s define ‘career development’. Career development, to me at least, is a process set in place to take an individual on a gradual move up on her chosen vocation so as to bring forth the maximum amount of self fulfillment, self actualization and utilization of her strengths and abilities. It is a road-map for one of mankind’s most important characteristics : The Need for Meaningful Work. The ancient Indians have a beautiful phrase for this. They called it one's 'dharma'.

Now, let’s get back to the question of who is responsible for one’s career development or rather who is responsible for putting in place a process "... to take an individual on a gradual move up on her chosen vocation so as to bring forth the maximum amount of self fulfillment, self actualization and utilization of her strengths and abilities.”

There was a time when a young employee joins the ranks of an organization and hands over the entire responsibility for her career development to her manager/organization. 20 or 25 years later, she may retire from that very same organization with a golden hand-shake and a gold bracelet. She would have had a fulfilling life and career and she would have felt, rightly so, that the organization had taken good care of her.

But then things changed. Small companies became conglomerates, local companies became global corporations, homogeneous work-force became multi-cultural and the world became flat and with all that, human resource development became complicated!Hence, slowly but surely the concept and practice of life time employment gradually eroded from the consciousness of the work-force. Here is where the dilemma begins. If the organization can't be trusted to provide a life-time employment contract, can it be trusted to provide career development for me( at least for as long as I am deemed useful)? Well, the answer is Yes and No!

Yes, the organization will provide an individual with a career development path. But, this is subject to the following:

1. It is a progressive organization.
2. It is an organization that lives the maxim "People are our greatest asset".
3. The individual is of value to the organization.
4. The individual has made her self relevant to the continued changes in the organization.
5. The business environment is one of growth and expansion; not contraction.

There are many organizations, big and small, that have come to realize that loyalty to the company has been replaced with loyalty to career. With this realization, comes the need for organizations to clearly lay out 3-year, 5-year and 10-year career development plans for all its employees. I often say to human resource managers that there are only 2 reasons why a valuable employee leaves an organization : A lousy manager or an even lousier career development path. A grand simplification? I doubt it.

Now, even with the best organization assisted career development programs there are still many who don't make it up his or her career path. The reasons for this can be attributed to any one or a combination of the following factors:

1. The individual re-aligned her career choice, which is quite natural.
2. The career development program is ill conceived and/or takes on an appearance of 'propaganda' tool rather as an honest discussion between the employee and the organizations.
3. The managers are not trained to coach and mentor employees on their career development.
4. The individual refuses to accept his/her responsibility in the career development equation.

Whose responsibility is it for one's career development? The answer is obvious.

Beware the Doom Loop

Jim Collins of the 'Good to Great' fame describes the Doom Loop as a downward spiral into oblivion. It is often characterized by a steady stream of 'new' leaders, strategies, five year plans AND constant poor results.

And then, the senior managers often say "It was all so sudden.... we never knew it was going to be so unexpected". Really?

I think anybody in any organization that is on the wrong side of the doom loop will know immediately that the oranization is on a downward spiral but what happens in reality is that fear paralizes them into thinking excactly the opposite or worst, they deliberatly refuse to face the facts. Executives give overly optimistic targets, promise unrealistic turn-around results or feign ingnorance of the difficulties faced by their departments. In one account shared by a senior manager from an organiztaion that was in the Doom Loop was that Fear and Anger made decision making difficult if not impossible. Individuals opposed ideas not based on facts but on emotions. Managers became angry and that clouded their judgement.

Well, thats a Doom Loop scenario alright! Is your organization in a Doom Loop? If yes, tell your people this : We have time to either fail or learn...make your
choices.

Is 'Service Atttidue' Trainable?

For the next 3 months, a few of us fellow corporate trainers/consultants will be busy developing, conducting, implementing and evaluating a program that we have christened as " The 5 Star Customer Service Champion" or 5 Star CSC for short for a company involved in several service oriented businesses.

Interestingly, a few days ago I heard of a coffee life-style company (I think I am the first one who coined this term)which believes that service attitude is something that is not trainable. In other words, you either have it or you don't. The recruitment process of this company involves the entire team of staff at each outlet where an interview is conducted and a team decision is made whether the interviewee has the service attitude or not. No training! You come in with the skill to serve. You don't learn on the job!

The obvious question is : Can we train someone to have a service attitude or is it something inborn and natural. Is it nature or is it nurture? I think its both and there are more people in the service industry out there who have been trained in the service attitude although there are a few (very few) who have had the service attitude in them all the while. Lets talk about the latter.

Many years ago, I had the opportunity to observe a customer service representative at a DiGi outlet in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. She was one of the few people whom I can confidently say was born to serve. She had such an aura of the service attitude that her other colleagues paled in comparison. I am also confident that providing exceptional service is so natural for her that she will probably wonder about all the fuss about customer service training! Don' get me wrong, as I have come across many other front liner for example, who have provided good service but I would not bet on saying that they have an internal built-in service attitude like the DiGi lady.

The thing is, there are not many like the DiGi lady around. The good ones, so to speak, will sooner or later find their way to better paying employers or more exciting industries. That leaves most other SMEs in a position of making the best of whoever comes their way. The only way to do that is through training.

The vast majority of the people who are employed to represent an organization when dealing with customers on a daily basis needs some form of training and development. Such trainings should also be a continuous and filled with exciting programs, friendly competition and an overall sense of 'activity' all the time. Yes, all the time.

You see, as I have said earlier, most of our people need to be trained in customer service as they are not born with the service attitude and people who needs to be trained in something will sooner or later forget all their learning. The only effective way to keep their learning fresh and active is by constantly creating a buzz around it. Remember the Fish Philosophy? I believe that it was so successful not because of its novelty of learning from a bunch of fish-mongers but because it was a process filled with laughter, fun, games, competition and a general sense of on-going buzz to the extent that much of the concepts became part of their everyday lingo.

In fact, 2 years ago when we were conducting a sales program for managers of a Malaysian telco, we noticed a drastic and noticebale change in the service attitude of the front liners of this telco who were at that time going though their own customer service training.

So, is customer service attitude trainable. Yes. Do everybody need the training? No. Are there many more who needs the training than who don't? Yes. Thats my equation.

But wait, there is another component to this equation: Are there those who are just not fit for the service industry? Yes. What to do with them? Train them and get rid of them if they don't perform to expectations. But remember: train them first for benefit of the doubt as there are many unpolished diamonds out there.

I am hoping to discover some of these diamonds in the next 3 months.

Cheers to all of you.

The Digital Economy

Last week, I attended an international seminar that among others discussed the impact of the current digital economy on management and leadership styles. The topic intrigued me not so much for all the sophisticated developments around the world as a direct result of the digital economy but rather what, in my mind the real meaning of what the digital economy is all about.

Lets use Hollywood as an illustrative example of the new digital economy. 5 or 10 years ago, an animated feature film produced by a Hollywood studio would have been a 100% American product as the entire production of the film would have been done by Americans or those working in American movie studios. Today, a Disney cartoon is conceptualised in Boston, animated in Bangalore, edited in Busan and premiered in Baltimore. How is this possible? Simple! The Digital Economy.You see, what the digital economy has done is that it has enabled more and more of human commercial activities to be broken down into bits and pieces of digital bytes that can be moved from one continent to another, re-assembled, worked on, re-broken into bytes and sent to another continent to be re-assembled into a finished product. This cycle can involve a dozen employees in a dozen countries in multiple time-zones.

Today, a large amount of medical x-rays from American hospitals are read and interpreted by Indian and Australian doctors. Again, this is the direct result of our ability today to digitize our everyday activities.

While I find most discussions on the digital economy hovering around how outsourcing and offshoring are changing the international economic order, very few have actually paused to look at how the digital economy have enabled almost all our activities to be broken into byte sized information that can be manipulated and worked on without any spatial-time constraints.

I anticipate the real impact of the digital economy will dawn on the mass consciousness of the people in a couple of years when the International Space Station is completed. This space station and others like it that will surely follow will be maintained 24/7/365 by a group of space agency employees who will be spread around in every corner of the world who will be managing every minute detail of these space stations.

Do we dare to hope that maybe the digital economy will also unite the human race? Time will tell.

How Effective Are Corporate Training Programs?

I think I have covered this issue before but I would like to share something that I came across some time ago.

James Eison in his chapter in the book Academic Leadership (Edited by Robert M. Diamond) listed the following 10 characteristics of what he considers as learning:


1. Learning is fundamentally about making and maintaining connections
2. Learning is enhanced by taking place in the context of a compelling situation
3. Learning is an active search for meaning
4. Learning is developmental, a cumulative process involving the whole person
5. Learning is done by individuals who are intrinsically tied to others as social beings
6. Learning is strongly affected by the educational climate
7. Learning requires frequent feedback if it is to be sustained, practice if it is to be nourished, and opportunities to use what has been learned
8. Much learning takes place informally and incidentally
9. Learning is grounded in particular contexts and individual experiences
10. Learning involves the ability of individuals to monitor their own learning


Most corporate trainers/consultants would have had the question : "How effective is your training" thrown at them. I suppose it is a valid question although I sometimes wish the party asking that question rephrase it into maybe : "What new things will we learn from your program?"

You see, to answer "how effective is your training" puts a corporate trainer or consultant at a no-win situation as what he/she is going to deliver is only as good as the minds that are going to receive it and the environment that is going to allow the new knowledge to flourish. Training at the essence of it is learning and if we take the above 10 characteristics of what constitutes as learning, I think we now should have a good benchmark on whether a training program has been effective or otherwise.

I believe it was Reg Revans who once said that "Learning must be equal to or greater than the rate of change". How is it in your organization? Are you learning enough to face the changes? Are you learning more than you need? Sometimes in my programs, I come across managers who become uncomfortable when they come to realize that they are learning more than what they thought they needed from the program. Their excuse : I can't use all these new knowledge in my present company....its just not ready for this". I think most of you readers would have already seen through the fallacy of this argument.

For any learning to be effective, a host of factors must fall into place. So, how effective are my training programs. Well, they are all ALWAYS effectively developed and delivered. You got to ask the learners for the rest!

The Flattening of International Higher Education

In recent times, there has been a great flattener in the world of international higher education. In one of my previous entries, I talked about how Friedman's the World is Flat assertion has become a catch-phrase in major board rooms of the corporate world. However, the flattening of the world has been going on for quite some time. A good example of this is in the arena of higher education.

It is suffice to say that the idea and concept of the University was born prior to modern times. The Italians, British, French and the Egyptians all claim to be the originator of the University. Going by strict definition, the Indians are probably the the first to have the first tell-tale signs of organised knowldge dissemination (what a univerity is really all about) through the concept of ashram.

Nevertheless for the purpose of this particular discussion, I am going to refer to 'University' as to mean the modern University as per what we are all accustomed to now which is a model created and popularised by the Anglo-Saxons. Enter the world of Cambdrige, Oxford and Havard!

In the beginning (as any Cambridge historian will tell you), there was no University of Cambridge. There was however, a group of colleges that later became known collectively as the Univerity of Cambridge. The same applies to Oxford. While these and many more Universities have been in existence for almost a thousand years, the explosion of Universities around the world took place only after World War 2. In the United States itself, the mushrooming of unversities and adult education coincided with th return of US servicemen from the trenches of Europe. At the same time, many nations gained their independence from their colonial masters. This happened right from 1940s and all the way to 1970s. Countries in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world all scrambled to assert thier nationhood by establishing their national universities. Ironically, this assertion of new found nationhood was modelled after what was existent in the land of the colonial master themselves. Hence, one will hear nationalistic statements of educational freedom vis a vis national freedom and such from an Asian or African university BUT their entire academic and administrative structure will be a carbon copy from the Oxfords and Cambridges of the Anglo-Saxon world. Soon, this model became the only model for what a University should be. In porpular parlance, it was known as the brick & mortar university

The brick & motar Universities held sway throughtout the world and like many things in human history, anything that is often repeated becomes the truth; sometimes the only truth.

Then, the Internet age arrived in the 1980s. Since then, the concept of University has gone through more changes than what it has been accustomed to in the previous 1000 years. As the Internet prompted people to ask questions about their traditional way of doing business, it also encouraged people from the academia to question the traditional way of disseminating knowledge. For the first time, the possibility of providing University education without the need for physical brick & mortar campuses was explored. Hence, the birth of distance education which later morphed into on-line universities.

Since the 1990s, the concept and practice of University went through another dramatic change through the establishment of Transnational Universities which have incorporated the best methods and processes of traditional and non-traditional universities. The distinguishing characteristics of a Transnational University are : 1) Provides its services/products in 3 or more national territories, 2) Multi-ethnic faculty, 3) Distributed decision making, 4) Centalised quality control, 5) 3 or more international affiliations, 6) One Vision and Mission, 7) Non-governmental and/or political.

Like any change, the tansformation of the University and what it should mean to the 21st century knowledge seeker has received much resistence from those affected by the change in the status-quo.

I anticipate more exciting things to come from these Transnational Universities.

Oh My! It's a Flat World!

The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman was one of the best books that I have read in a long time. It's futurist and realist at the same time as while he wrote it before many of the things that he described became common knowledge, yet by the time you pick up the book from the shelves, those things wold have indeed become common knowledge. Innovation at the speed of writing I suppose!

I am going to take this opportunity to provide some of the most current business practises to support his notion of a flat world. However, unlike Mr. Friedman who writes from the point of view if converging technology, I am going to give examples of how desperate businesses and corporations have become precisely for the reason that the world is flat and with it competition has coming knocking on their doors at a speed and from directions that they never dreamt off.


EXAMPLE 1

Southwest Airlines : It has a Chief Apology Officer (not his official title, thank God!) whose job is to go to the ground and find out from passengers about what went wrong on a particular flight and shooting off a very personalized letter of apology to each and everyone. The reason : Apologize before some other airline grabs the disgruntled passenger. I hope somebody from Malaysia Airlines is reading this!

Example 2

Ford Motor company is using brain scans to literally watch on computer screens what turns on its potential customers. A new car model is rolled out in front of sample target customer groups and by varying its colour etc, Ford researchers are able to identify the parts of our brain, called the Reward Circuit, which will light up when we anticipate something pleasurable. In other words, the automotive industry has become so competitive that the traditional giants of the industry are no longer relying on traditional methods. They are using every possible tool at their disposal to the beat the competitor. What more, today their competitors are not only European, Japanese or Korean models but also Indian and Chinese made cars. So cut short the process! Why ask the customer what he likes when you can ask his brain?

Example 3

Samsung is building huge showrooms which will be stocked with all its latest offering. Each show room will be able to accommodate hundreds of customers at any one time. The catch : They can't buy any of the products showcased but they can use them! You are thinking of buying a new oven? Take a walk into the showroom, bake your biscuits. If you like the oven, you can buy it at their regular outlets. You want to know how a new Samsung handset will feel if you are calling your teenage son half way across the world? Use any of the handset displayed, make that long distance call at no charge and if you like it, you know what to do!

Example 4

There was a time when thousands of eager Indian students trooped into American universities to gain their much sought after MBAs. Today, American and European sudents are applying into Indian universities. It will intreresting to see the American universities' next course action.


Well, I am going to keep out for more flattening experience! Its a exciting world!

Why We Need to Keep Learning?

On the 20th and 21st I was with a room full of managers from SIHAT Sdn Bhd. Not only did I have the managers with me, I also had the CEO of the company, Datuk Venu. I was totally humbled by the experience. Here is a man, much more senior to me, willing to sit down with his managers for 2 full days to listen to what I have to say. The thing that left me amazed was the fact that he was so excited about the program and the various issues brought up and suggestions made by his managers during the program that I could see the glee in his eyes for having the opportunity to be there with them. What more, he was able to recall some of the key ideas that I presented and gave his own take on them. Simply put, here is a man who 'has seen that, been there, done that' but yet so hungry for new knowledge and ideas regardless from where it comes from.

I have often said in my programs that a manager/leader needs to keep learning. I said the same thing on the 26th with yet another group of managers from Uniqema Sdn. Bhd. I say it often because I truly believe in it. In fact I am absolutely convinced that an individual's leadership and managerial skills develop proportionately with his/her appetite for learning. The moment learning stops, performance hits a plateau and soon after, deteriorates. A manager who keeps learning, keeps improving. A manager who keeps learning, keeps cynicism and pessimism at bay.

Although rare, there are times when I hear somebody say " I don't know.... I am not sure whether that will work in my organization". I often spend most of the break time with this individual as I really need to understand the reasons for the pessimism as that is a clear sign that learning has come to a stop for him or her. For me, that's a real pity as learning makes a man. It definitely makes a leader!

Learning Organizations? What is THAT?

For the last 2 weeks, I have been trying to subscribe to a particular service. As it happens today, this particular service provider has engaged vendors to provide the final link between itself and the end customer. In other words, the vendor will be the guy who will, at the end of the day deliver the service/product that I have signed up for.

I was told that the whole process should not take longer than 3 working days and yet I waited 1 week 4 days before a vendor finally arrived and told me that he is not sure why the sales people failed to tell me that the particular service that I have signed up for was not available at my area of residence. In summary, he is telling me politely that I can't have the service that I had been waiting for almost 2 weeks. Looking at it differently, I have been tyring desperately to become a customer of this service provider for almost 2 weeks and it all came to nothing!

In our short conversation he said something that caught my attention. He said something like " That's the problem with the sales people. When we call them to come for our own training to familiarize with the products and services they don't turn up... they have no idea of the finer aspects of the products and services"!

There you go friends! This particular organization has a long way to go before it can become even remotely a learning organization.

Becoming a learning organization, as I often point out in my programs, is not about technology alone. Yes, technology facilitates the learning process of an organization but it is just that...a facilitator. To truly become a learning organization and to be able to use each learning to add value to products and services and ultimately to add value to the customers' experience of that product or service , an organization must look at all the learning opportunities already available around it. Vendors, suppliers, employees, customers and other direct and indirect stakeholders are a gold mind of learning resources. There are much to learn from these simple and available resources and yet many organizations insist on technology first, learning later.

Recently, I was told about a company that is involved in developing complicated medical instruments and support systems. Every year, it organizes a get-together-session with selected patients from all over the world to share with the employees of this organization how its products have saved their lives. Most often than not, these employees break down in tears when they hear these stories as they realize how important their work is. They learn that what they do is important. They learn to take responsibility for their work. Now, this is what in my mind, a learning organization should do.

As for my desperate attempt to become a customer, I guess I will have to try again in two weeks time, as I will be back with the good people of Maybank for the final stages of my Personal Mastery Program for them.

I would also like to take this opportunity to convey my condolences to every one at Maybank for the loss of your dear friend and colleague, Mr. Francis. My condolences to the family of Mr. Francis. In the little time that I had with him during the program, I found him to be a man of passion and zest for life and a man deeply devoted to God and family. Rest in peace my friend for that is what we would have become if we had more time.

Brain, Thinking, Personality and Living

The model that I have used to deliver my program on Personal Mastery flows along the following lines : The way our brain is structured (created for some) influences our ability to think which then influences our mind which in turn affects our decision making. Add to this two other closely linked elements of the Self : personality and value systems, we have indeed an extremely complicated organism called the Human Being. I believe the trail to Personal Mastery begins in the brain.

The brain is the tool that most of us have to view the world and give meaning to it. I say most of us because there is a group of people who don't rely too much on the brain but rather on their 'heart'. Of course heart here is used figuratively. But more on that later.

Fundamentally, the brain's weakness are related to 3 factors : 1. The brain is at the end of the day, a biological-mechanical thing. All mechanical things have limitations. 2. The brain can't differentiate between fact and fantasy. 3. The brain's basic function is to keep the body alive and stress free.

With all our scientific advancement, we have only yet scratched the surface as far as deciphering the human brain is concerned. One of the key sentences that I often repeat in the program is : "Our brain is the most powerful tool that we have AND it is also our weakest". The human brain can think of the cosmos, produce great works of art and command nature to serve its needs but it can't eliminate prejudice, it can't stop ego-centric thinking nor can it easily accept ideas and opinions contrary to its pre-set belief system.

Allow me to illustrate this further. There was a recent article in a Malaysian daily which talked about how the Ford motor company uses the knowledge of reward-circuit in the human brain to plan and execute its A&P campaign for its latest models. In short, the reward circuit is the part of our brain that lights-up ( literally not figuratively!) when we anticipate something pleasant be it a desirable car, the possibility of chatting up a member of the opposite sex or waiting to be served a refreshing iced lemon tea on a hot afternoon. In other words, Ford is not asking us what we like in its cars. Its asking our brain directly. Why go through the hassle of asking us when our answers are bound to be coloured by so many 'irrelevant' factors that have got nothing to do to with selling cars?!

Ever noticed how our mouth waters when you think of a pleasant food. In my program I illustrate this by describing a fresh green lime and lime juice. There are research reports from NASA which describes how astronauts in its training facilities are able to produce bodily readings that are only possible if they are actually on the moon. They do this by intense imagination. In other words, they imagine it so vividly that the brain actually believes that its on the moon and accordingly instructs bodily functions to adapt to conditions on the moon.

I can give many other scientific evidences on the limitations of the human brain but what does it have to do with leadership and managing people? The answer is EVERYTHING! It should make all leaders and managers sit up and think about their thinking. The so called logical and rational decision making that they do may not be that logical and rational after all. Its all mechanical.

The greatest of leaders and the best among the Human race have always known that they had a brain. For the rest, the brain had them. Now, is it a wonder why we have always searched for somehing higher than the brain. We give it fancy names like EQ and EI but the truth is, humans have known all along that the brain is not a tool to be entirely trusted. There are others. More on that the next time.