We’re Like A Family ….

You have no idea.

In my usual lookout for some brilliant demystification of that ever prevalent realm of Corporate Life, I have begun to spot parallels. Where? Between the office and home.

Have you ever heard of paternal management? You know the type. The boss stands as a notable father-type figure, taking a strong direction in what he (but a she is also possible) believes is the best not only for his company, but also for the lives of his employees. You’re like to see a heavy emphasis on loyalty, maybe even policies such as a no-smoking rule, because basically, it’s a concept based on one person’s leadership and vision, followed stringently by all those below him. Without a doubt, the paternalistic head cares deeply for his employees, but at the same time, he takes the view that these people are basically followers in desperate need of direction.

Some families operate this way, and it’s not hard to see a link. It’s also not hard to see that this is a style that works some of the time and in some places, depending on various factors such as who the leader is and who the followers are, and what their main goal is, et cetera et cetera.

But let’s flow away from that vein. Speaking in general, can the psychologies in home relationships have any application in work-oriented ones? A number of managers and leaders have told me that looking for a good business partner is like looking for a good marriage partner. There are no ’set’ qualities to look out for. It’s all about that “fit”, I’m told, a matter as intangible as when you’re looking for that Special Someone. Fair enough. Curiously, I’ve heard employees say the same thing about their job. Haven’t you heard that line ‘It just wasn’t working out?’. There are no tawdry affairs or arguments over a toilet seat constantly left up, but division of labour? A breadwinner and dependents? There must be some structural similarity here.

Speaking of which, let’s look at the relationship between a boss and his subordinates. Have you ever noticed how even intelligent adults may descend into petty conflicts at times with the boss? Now, remember all that you’ve ever seen/heard/read/experienced with parents dealing with their teenagers. I am not trying to say that workers are like teenagers. I am only suggesting that both situations entail a very delicate power play. Be too autocratic, and you risk mutiny. But neither is it wise to provide your workers too much free rein.

So what works? The same elements that work with teenagers. Trust. Respect. Communication. Are these not the driving forces encouraged by top business leaders today for the working world? It’s all about people, people just looking for a way to survive and succeed together.

~ Lyana Shah

World Gourmet Summit 2008

Our lovely editor Hidayah Hassan was quoted in an brief writeup of the upcoming World Gourmet Summit 2008 in Singapore.  Do take a look!

http://www.worldgourmetsummit.com/wgs2008/personalities.php

~ Lyana Shah

2008, whatcha got for us?

The year started off strangely, and I use the word strange because of several opposing elements at play. Good here, bad there. On a larger scale, economists, politicians and leaders are “cautiously optimistic” about 2008, and why not? The recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto puts world leaders at major unease, tribal tensions in Kenya contribute to the US $100/barrel situation and the world continues its obsession with carbon footprints (are we really doing anything about it?). Oh, did I mention that omnipresent inflation?

But a new year represents a new slate, no? We resolve to eat less, smoke less, exercise more, feel more compassion; hey, weren’t those last year’s resolutions? Really, dont beat yourself up over lost causes.

At The Executive’s office, things took a happy turn. We welcome on board our new co-Managing Director, Mr Mohan Shandilya, who will be a great addition to the family. His business wisdom culled from years of entrepreneurship, and his international perspective derived from overseas business dealings, will give the magazine a sharper cutting edge. 2008 will be a year like no other for us. While promising plans are still baking in the oven, I have no doubt that we will reach new heights of creativity and profitability in the year of the Rat. I’ll update you with our plans very soon.

We finally moved in to our new office, or house as I usually call it (by Freudian slip, since I spend more time here than at home). Although it has a ‘haunted house’ aura about it, it is undeniably charming, flanked by rows of great eateries and bars (very important for whisky & wine nights) and lush greenery.
We’re now located at 101B Upper East Coast Road Singapore 455239.
At the moment, dust, debris and dirt are still sharing the space with us; the lavatory needs some work, but we’re happy campers, I’d say.

I am blithely (or blindly, some say) optimistic for 2008 that I refuse to see the bumps on the road ahead. Check back with me, say, in February.

Happy 2008!

Blown Bulb?

How many workers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Zero. They’ll keep pushing the task on each other, utilising the ‘I’m too busy’ justification, and things get nowhere.

How many managers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Zero. After failing at delegating that to the employees, they’ll try getting someone to dig up a Yellow Pages and call an electrician. Again, the buck gets passed around, so you may have to wait a while.

How many directors does it take to change a lightbulb?

That really depends, but expect a lot of board meetings, feasibility reports and worries of consequences of the new bulb on stock value.

Lyana Shah’s Recommendation: Forget bulbs! Use natural light. Don’t you just love Mother Earth?

The Outsource Society

Is it just me, or does anyone else worry that modern man has gotten to the point where all life aspects have been outsourced?

This trend isn’t just growing popular in the business context, but the personal one as well. More and more people today seem to have other people: delivering their groceries, looking after their offspring, driving them to and from work (and that includes taxis, all you cabbie addicts), fixing their meals (forget using that stove!), cleaning their homes, ironing their clothes, talking them through their computer problems – the list goes on.

 The favorite lament is that ‘we have no time to do anything, we’re so busy/tired because of work’. Fair enough. We’re a bunch of workaholics, especially here in sunny-but-we’re-always-trapped-indoors Singapore. But is there not a difference? I should think that there’s a difference between working hard and coming home to find out that you don’t do anything yourself anymore. Are we allowing ourselves to be babysat? Does this spell impending overdependence? In the end, if you ‘only have time for work’, you will ‘only have a life of work’. Nothing else. And that’s not a hole I’d like to fall into. 

~ Lyana Shah recommends you go home tonight, make your own dinner, find your own way to work in the morning, and try assembling your next IKEA purchase yourself for once. Unless you are really DIY-challenged. I want no lawsuits.

Standards vs. Sincerity

Imagine walking into a shop. You browse. You muse. You want to buy. But something goes awry with the staff. They lack knowledge of the products or services. They are rude. They make it clear with their tone and their expression that they would rather be anywhere in the world but there, talking to you. What happens? You promptly turn on your heels and walk out the door, vowing never to return.

Sound familiar? 

Without a doubt, the topic of Singapore’s service standards has been quite a hot one these past few years. In 2005, Prime Minister Lee made it part of his National Day Rally speech, stating that we ‘don’t have a natural service culture’, especially compared to some of our regional counterparts. That same year, the GEMS movement was launched, which spells ‘Go the Extra Mile for Service’. We have the ‘UP Your Service!’ college, headed by Ron Kaufman.

Yet, last year, the World Economic Forum saw Singapore’s ranking in world service standards plunge from 17th place to 26th. Cause for worry? Basically, this slip only affirms what seems to have been the common opinion – that still more needs to be done. 

With all this talk of improving service levels, businesses have been trying, implementing what you might call service rules. It’s part of going into the service line. Bosses directly instruct their staff to ‘greet, say hello to the customers, thank them, speak nicely … ’ and so on, so on.

The thing is, must we really be told? It’s supposed to be – not even common sense – but natural. To a gracious person, for sure, but even more so to a worker whose duty is to meet and attend to tons of customers a day!

Is our flailing service culture a byproduct of our own social culture? Perhaps we are less gregarious than our Western counterparts. Or we take too rigid and practical an approach to work (which should not be the case for service, it certainly involves some on-the-ball thinking, and a capability for creative problem solving). These are not traits to be taught, although I do believe they need to be encouraged in order to flow and work to maximum potential.

If this is the case, then service has to be inculcated in our young, not through schools or training programmes, although their presence is still beneficial, to provide theoretical learning. Instead, parents have to inculcate that sense of humility, kindness, and manners in their children, while the greater society needs to learn to expect these social graces of each other. After all, what good would modern Singapore be without a civilised front?

Once we have that social atmosphere, the service standards will follow, which should save our ministers a bit of head-scratching on the matter.

A Few Final Thoughts:

While the true test of someone’s service mettle comes in the form of difficult customers, service is a two-way street.  Remember, good customers beget good service.

Give the service tax system a boot and bring in tipping instead. This is an idea that’s been raised by some. Tipping has not been shown to be a much better system as yet though, and we should all know that good service people (as well as bad ones) aren’t motivated by money.

Bosses have a role to play when targeting better service in their business. Instead of telling your employees to be polite and treat your customers well, learn to hire the right kind of people. Pose ’scenario questions’, or even play them out if you wish to, in order to discern the candidate’s personality and mannerisms. Good service isn’t something you should be scientific about. It’s a human aspect, so observe, think, feel. It’s not hard to recognize a true service person.

In addition, employers must trust their workers and give them room to act flexibly. Customer service often entails unique requests and special attention, so give your workers the chance to attend to these as they see fit.

~ Lyana Shah

Don’t Diss Dilbert

It’s arguably the most famous comic in the world to date – Dilbert, the brainchild of Scott Adams that takes us through the minefield of corporate life. The lunacy of the incompetent, micromanaging ‘Pointy-Haired Boss’ and the antics of “heroes” Dilbert, Alice, Wally and Asok are always hilarious – if at times painfully familiar. That may just be why so many people are voracious readers of the strip – 150 million in 65 countries. For many of them, creator Scott Adams’ work is more than just art. It’s reality, hitting close to home. Who knows? Perhaps Dilbert represents a strange sort of cosmic comfort for them – by laughing at the strip, they are, in essence, able to laugh at themselves.

Personally, I’ve always enjoyed watching the brilliant but easily enraged Alice. I’m sure more than one of us would love to have her nifty weapon called the ‘Fist of Death’, reserved for ice-crunching colleagues, sexist buffoons and the like (though curiously, never the Pointy-Haired boss, that I can remember).

Even more entertaining is Dogbert, the Machiavellian pet of Dilbert, who nonetheless can’t help enjoying a good scratch now and then. Dogbert is mean, and proud of it, nonchalant as he takes advantage of the not-so-intelligent. He’s hardly ‘Man’s Best Friend’ in Dilbert’s case, but clearly has some semblance of a soft spot for him (he once rescued Dilbert from the bowels of the hellish Accounting Department).

But the reason I’m writing this isn’t to reiterate how much I personally adore Adams’ work. Rather, I have always been interested in its effect on the real world. I can tell you that I’ve been to offices that specifically banned the pinning up of Dilbert strips in the office.

WHAT?

For goodness sake, it’s a comic, not a bloody FHM poster. How is it inappropriate? How is it different from soft toys or pictures of your kitty/doggy at home? It appeals to your interest. It isn’t obscene. And one or two snipped strips can hardly be called visually distracting.

Inherently, Dilbert is just pictures and words, but it seems that Scott Adams has also created something that’s developed political power. The bosses that ban Dilbert probably feel targeted. Dilbert is about dissent (although the characters still obey their boss in the end). Perhaps real-life leaders are bothered by the notion that they might be to their workers what the Pointy-Haired Boss is to Dilbert and his colleagues. So they get rid of the reminder, purge the workplace of such strips.

But is this regulation, or is it stifling? What impression do you give to your workers when you have to stoop to banning? It’s not as if they’ll stop reading the strip outside of work, nor can you change whatever views about you they may hold. Banning something like Dilbert, in fact, will only bring across the message that you are threatened, that you have no idea how to deal with an issue other than trying to pretend it isn’t there. There may not even be an issue in the first place! Perhaps your employee really likes Dilbert for the fun of it, and has no mental link between the comic’s useless manager and you. Hopefully.

Whatever the case, just let Dilbert be the opiate of the masses. Sometimes your reaction to an object will have more effect than the object itself.

~ Lyana Shah

I poked and poked.

So I sent out an email to a blitz of contacts from the magazine, pertaining to the very exciting topic of: Should IMs and social networking sites (SNs) be banned in the office? This is a highly nagging management issue and boy, did I press a hot button.

Some of the responses were reticent, so I had to keep poking for more meat from them. But in general, there are extremely vehement opinions on the subject matter. I think the term ‘poke’ would find its way into the Oxford lexicon soon; it’s on everyone’s lips! Some are advocates of social media; and some, surprisingly NOT CEOs, think that IMs and SNs are rousing problems.

Someone even proclaimed a meaningless existence without IMs – come to think of it, I’ve only commuted with him via email and text messages.. But nonetheless, Web 2.0 and its spawn of social media are extremely intriguing. And investors agree – however they see SNs as gold mines. The phenomenal Facebook has 40 million users worldwide, and counting. That is why Microsoft is willing to fork out an eye-popping US$ 300 mil to 500 mil for a 5% stake of the site. Zuckerberg and gang slapped on a US$ 5 billion price tag on their ingenious creation.

The Sunday Times ran an article on how companies deal with IMs and SNs. The debate percolates through First World nations everywhere – US reports loss of millions of dollars and hours to these social media and UK’s trade union are trying to create policies around this issue.

Is there a need for such extreme action? In fact, has any company ever monitored the relation between usage of social media in the office and work productivity? Yes, you can claim millions of dollars loss, but how is that quantified or justified? Or is this just based on the wizardry of mathematic calculations without actual on-site monitoring?

If you want to talk about the detriments of loafing, then shouldn’t employers also ban smoking, tea time breaks, coffee breaks, sms-ing in the office; oh where do I stop?

I feel a tad guilty now for blogging.

Hidayah

P.S. For a business perspective on this matter, look out for our November issue’s coverage on social media.

Hardware without Heartware

When The Executive’s editorial team came up with The Service Issue, we sat down for many hours, throwing back and forth discuses of ideas, mainly objections, that perhaps an issue on service would do great disservice to the magazine. The irony. Because, after all, what is there to talk about? Service in Singapore makes great fodder for a comedian’s routine.

But the imperative role service plays in today’s globalised world is more significant then before. Service cannot be ignored. Service is the lynchpin to your bottom line. Either excel in service, or say goodbye to your bottom. The meaning behind what used to be a dirty word, service has assumed a more robust and diversified form. Service is no longer just about being professional to customers. To many companies, it now includes fulfilling responsibilities to the environment, to society and to employees. The original meaning of ‘service’, based on the trusted Oxford dictionary, is ‘an act of helpful activity’. So really, capitalism might have tainted, in the words of Ron Kaufman, the spirit of service.

But gone are the days when you mention service to any discerning man or woman on the street, and you would get a cocktail of apathy and unsavoury sentiments from these self-appointed service experts. Horror fables of spitting waiters and rude managers are antiquated. Singapore’s service standards, to me have come a long way. I can’t think of a restaurant/shop where I was violently mad at the service staff (can’t say the same for the service standards in Malaysia, and don’t get me started on that of China). In fact, everything is fine and dandy.

So what is still missing? There is a serious shortage of heartware. People, it takes more muscles to frown than to smile. Unless you want to perfect the art of facial contortion, I suggest you flash those pearly whites for better health.
For example, I visited this newly opened casual restaurant specialising in mussels, and the service is IMPECCABLE. Faultless, pristine; Ron Kaufman would be proud. They get your orders right, serve the food piping hot, and seem to know the menu like the back of their hands. So what’s my beef? When they speak, there is simply no eye contact. None. It’s as though looking at my eyes would cause them to self-combust. I don’t get it. I don’t! When did eye contact stop being part of good service?

Like the Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz, Singapore and her polished pomp should be on the prowl for a heart. If I only had a heart, I’d be tender, I’d be gentle. And awful sentimental regarding love and art, the Tin Man cries.

 

Hidayah

 

No more poking

It’s 9 am at work; coffee mugs on desks and the office seems to be on a roll as people are typing furiously on their keyboards. You and several colleagues exchange lunch plans without anyone budging or picking up the phone. The place has been decided – that new coffee shop down the road.

I present to you the wonders of technology. Who needs the phone now that there’s MSN, Adium, Velvetpuffin, etc (you can even IM on gmail). Instead of checking work emails first thing in the office, employees are logging on to IM (instant messaging) applications, poking/hugging/groping/ throwing sheep at each other on facebook (i’m not kidding, we don’t need face-face interaction anymore), or checking out photo albums on social networking sites – all in one breath. If only such talented multi-tasking skills can be effectively applied at work..

Are you guilty of the above-mentioned work crimes?

The term ‘crime’ may be a tad too harsh, but bosses are keen to clamp down on such errant computer behaviour, misuse of technology as they might put it. Is it really affecting work productivity? Has anyone taken a survey on increased productivity with decreased IMs usage? My sentiments- IMs and gang pose a certain degree of distraction, but sometimes with the drudgery of work, they also serve the part of calming nerves down. A tiny morsel of fun never kills.

Would you be upset if your workplace slaps a ban on IMs and social networking sites?

Hidayah