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

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

A mini makeover

So the time has come for us to update the look of our media kit. Our inaugural design was one borne out of haste, hence the dire need to change it.

My dear designers are milling it out, along with the October issue’s layout. It’s a long long night for TE team!

I’ll keep you posted once the new look is up and running!

Hidayah

Competition, competition

Competition usually houses two camps of players; those who thrive, excel and revel in it, and those who eschew, escape and run away from it. Entrepreneurs, by default, belong to the first camp of individuals. How they play the game and wage the battle are interesting sagas to follow and I don’t know about you, but I am a shameless voyeur who enjoys observing the bloodthirsty marketplace.

 

Think about it – wasn’t the broadcast industry more exciting when Mediacorp was dealing with the entry of SPH’s MediaWorks in 2001? Not only did it create more products for consumers; for businesses, MediaWorks presented another advertising platform to reach the target market. Television production houses were thrilled at the prospects of creating more content for the audience. But tight competition had put both networks in the red, with millions of dollars lost. MediaWorks saw a quick death and closed within three years. I still mourn its passing.

 

Hidayah
Editor-in-chief

 

Converse with Us!

As we step forward to introduce our inaugural corporate blog, to bring ourselves closer to our readers, do please feel free to drop us any comments as we can only improve with your views.

Do come back frequently as we would have new topics thrown up periodically and also updates on new developments of the magazine. As our reader, we give you the prerogative to bounce ideas around with us, throw us your opinions of anything and everything this blog talks about.

See you online!

Hidayah
Editor-in-chief