Some bosses can really be assholes. A good friend never fails to remind me, each time we meet, that I failed to warn him what an asshole my ex-boss was. Because now he is suffering under the same person. In my defence, I didn't know he was going there, and in fact I warned another good friend not to go. But eventually someone has to do the shit job.
So recently we met up again, and I told him some of my own fears - that I was beginning to see in myself some of the traits I hated most in abovementioned asshole.
To begin with, I wouldn't say he was a bad person. Just overly demanding. Usually this involved attaining unecessary levels of perfection, usually in the wee hours of the morning. Or preparing contingencies for contingencies for contingencies, at the expense of of other valued personal opportunities. Over time, I came to the conclusion that whatever other bad things I had to say about him, I could not accuse him of being a hypocrite, because if he was in my position he would probably have done everything he demanded of me. So he was merely expecting me to be as committed as he. I rejected this line of argument because if he wanted to stay in the office until midnight, that was his own business. I was going home.
Fast forward a few years, I'm still in the office at midnight a lot too. I suppose one could say I have a choice these days, but of course there are responsibilities to fulfill. And when I see the people under me cracking under the pressure I have transmitted to them, it makes me wonder if I am becoming anything like the man I loathe. Obviously I will never be as demanding as him, but then I'm also not sure if my people will be as tenacious as I was. And then I can't help but wonder if they don't hate me like I once did.
I'd like to take my foot off the gas pedal, but then I still have bosses to answer to too. The bottom line is that I actually do enjoy my work too, and the people around me. Else I would certainly not allow myself to be subjected to all this.
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sunday, August 13, 2006
work sucks
I'm sure everyone has gripes about work, whether veiled or otherwise. I am generally quite content in my present position, but on weekends like this one, when a mountain of work is dumped on my lap on Friday afternoon and due on Monday, I might just let out a smidgen of discontent. So here are some interesting articles from reputable periodicals that you can print out and paste on your cubicle walls as a form of silent protest.
NYTimes talks about how Americans are too afraid they will lose their jobs to go on holiday.
NYTimes talks about how Americans are too afraid they will lose their jobs to go on holiday.
“I never go on vacation,” said Ellen Kapit, a real estate agent in Manhattan. “And when I do, I have my computer, my Palm, my e-mail and my phone with me at all times.”And TIME Magazine echoes the complaint that holidays are not really holidays. (Courtesy of Jed)
...
But even as the American vacation is dying, the anxiety surrounding it is surging, according to surveys of workers released in the last year. Employees are sweating over every aspect of their getaways, from whether taking time off dooms them to the want ads to whether the work they will face when they return will keep them from ever leaving their cubicles again. And if they finally do make their escape?
...
“There’s a large increase in the number of people who worry that they will lose their job,” said Ellen Galinsky, the president of the Families and Work Institute, a nonprofit center for research on the American work force. In 1977, 45 percent of people felt truly secure in their jobs while only 36 percent have felt that way in recent years, she said, citing the organization’s surveys.
Please Don’t Make Me Go on Vacation, NYTimes, 10 August 2006
One of the top reasons given for not taking a vacation is that it's too much extra work. We have to get ahead of our workload in order to leave, and then we have to catch up on our workload upon our return. The longer the vacation we take, the bigger the stumbling blocks appear. So only 14% of Americans will take a vacation two weeks or longer this summer. Bottom line: it's simply become too stressful to relax.Well, if you want to know what I think, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. But some of the statements I made in an earlier post have found very strong support in both these articles. So at least I know I'm not the only one. Here is an excerpt:
Just Sit Back and Relax! TIME, 26 June 2006
My colleagues have evolved an extremely dangerous culture. That of staying back late in the office, whether or not they actually have real work to do. It is so prevalent to find people working till 9 or 10 at night, and I believe this is true of many other industries in Singapore, not just my own. But are these people really industrious, or just plain inefficient? Whatever the case, they are digging a hole for all of us, because if the expectation becomes to stay late in the office, especially on weekends, that will not do any good for anyone.I'm sure we can all relate yeah? And clearly America is not the place to be either. I hear Australia is still pretty good though.
Work, Paddychicken, 18 June 2005
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
a work philosophy
The last thing I need is a reputation for being hardworking. Heaven forbid that should ever happen.
"He's really lazy and he has such a bad attitude towards work. But when he puts his mind to it the results are just incredible. I'd better not bother him unless the work is really important. And I'd better give him an even bigger bonus this year in case he leaves."
Yup, that sounds about right. My resolution for the fiscal year.
"He's really lazy and he has such a bad attitude towards work. But when he puts his mind to it the results are just incredible. I'd better not bother him unless the work is really important. And I'd better give him an even bigger bonus this year in case he leaves."
Yup, that sounds about right. My resolution for the fiscal year.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
work dilemnas
On fine day, I arrived in the office to find this sign pasted on my cubicle wall ...
... apparently I was not the only one.
Since then, it has become common to refer to the day by how much work we're getting done.
Some examples:
"I think I'm doing too much work for 5% day" or "I think I'm doing too much work for 12% day"
"I'm not going to meet the 40% quota today"
The best part is that my boss joins in the fun. He also ridicules people for working on weekends.
And more interesting was last week, when we had holidays on Tuesday and Thursday. Clearly Wednesday was no longer 40% day, but was it 12% or 5%? We spent 50% of the day trying to figure that one out.
... apparently I was not the only one.Since then, it has become common to refer to the day by how much work we're getting done.
Some examples:
"I think I'm doing too much work for 5% day" or "I think I'm doing too much work for 12% day"
"I'm not going to meet the 40% quota today"
The best part is that my boss joins in the fun. He also ridicules people for working on weekends.
And more interesting was last week, when we had holidays on Tuesday and Thursday. Clearly Wednesday was no longer 40% day, but was it 12% or 5%? We spent 50% of the day trying to figure that one out.
Monday, October 17, 2005
small group dynamics
Every freshman in my school had to undergo a class in small group dynamics. In this class, we all learned the Bennis and Shepard theory of the Barometric Event. This is the event that pulls a groups together and forges the group identity. We all thought it was crap. But recent events in my Discipleship Group (DG) have made me realise just how telling this model can be, as I trace our transformation from a collection of individuals into parts of a whole. I couldn't find my old textbook, but an online article has outlined the theory quite succintly. This is going to be a super-long post ... you have been warned.
A sophisticated version of the developmental approach to understanding group process is the model of Bennis and Shepard. Bennis and Shepard adapted the ideas of Bion as a result of their studies of T-groups (a method originated by Lewin). They suggest that there is a progression between the different types of basic assumption group and that, in particular, the dependency and fight-flight groups tend to occur in the first part of a group's life while the pairing and work groups occur later and these two halves are divided from one another by what they call the "barometric event" which is an occurrence in which the relationship of the group to its leader/facilitator is irreversibly changed. Inter-member relations in the early phase are characterised by considerations of power whereas in the later phase the group becomes more personal (see table 2)
Table 2: Two main Stages of Group Development (Bennis & Shepard)
What Bennis and Shepard are saying, therefore, is that the group has two main stages which each have sub-stages. In the first main stage, the group members are preoccupied by their relationship to the group leader. At first the members feel dependent. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. The group moves into the phase that Tuckman calls storming. This is, in Bion's terms, a fight-flight mode. Bennis and Shepard call it counter-dependency or, simply, rebellion. A struggle ensues. Eventually some resolution to this tension is achieved and this is cathartic for the group. Bennis and Shepard believed that the resolution of this first half of the group was a crucially important event and so they gave it the portentous label "barometric". Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. The leader is dethroned.
Stage One
In the first six months that I joined this DG, almost all the large-scale events were initiated by the two leaders. While most members were strongly committed to Wednesday studies, their attendance of other events waxed and waned depending on their outside social lives. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. This is the dependency stage.
The crisis developed with the approach of our group mates' wedding. The leaders, as well as some very enthusiastic members, made the decision that the group would handle the church aspect of the wedding. Other members, whether due to unfamiliarity with the wedding couple, lack of personal talents or overburdened from other work already, were more hesitant to commit. Thus we entered the fight-flight stage. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. Each member was then faced with the dilemna of how much to contribute to this team effort, if at all. Remember that in a church setting, all contribution is purely voluntary. (This is why John C. Maxwell calls it the the highest form of leadership.)
To my mind, our barometric event started on the eve of the wedding. Although there was no compulsion, almost the entire group gathered in the church around 11pm, to see how they could help. Surrounded by flowers, satin, and other assorted decorations, we were finally faced with the full prospect of our responsibilities. In addition to the decorations, various members also had to coordinate the music, the ushers and the cars. The situation was not helped by the absence of the leader who was in Europe. Fatigued from a week of work, but comforted by each others presence and the sense of shared purpose, various talents began to emerge as we saw sides of each other that would never have been unveiled on a typical Wednesday night. The wedding itself was very poignant, and as we listened to the bride and groom on stage, each person was filled with the sense of shared joy and accomplishment that we had made this happy occasion possible. Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. We also had the chance to indulge in more intimate conversations with group mates we might not have spoken to before, over several glasses of wine. (Wine always helps.) And hence we passed into the second phase of the group's life.
In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. Immediately after the barometric event, the group is likely to settle into a degree of complacency. What they have been struggling with now no longer seems like an important issue. This roughly corresponds to Tuckman's "norming" phase. Members agree with each other more readily. The group feels smooth, agreeable and unpressured. Bennis and Shepard regard this as a "flight" phase, and it may well be, in Bion's terms, a time when the group is unconsciously working on the "pairing" assumption. Relationships have become more important than work.
Stage Two
The second stage for us is a direct outcome of the barometric events. Lunch gatherings after church began to see record numbers of attendance, as did our Sunday afternoon games which even include DG-mates from other churches. We also began hanging out far more on the weekends, forsaking relationships with other cliques. In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. We are revelling in our new-found togetherness, and indulging in other group activities such as the recent DG Sharing on Oct 16. In this cruising mode, there is a risk that our new friendships may overshadow the original purpose of the DG: as a support group for Christ-centred bible study.
As this goes on, however, time pressure once again begins to be felt. Members begin to be aware that they do not have forever to do things. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. A new phase of struggle results. This time, however, members do not assume that it is the leader's responsibility to get things done. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. Finally, if all goes well, the group reaches a phase in which there is a sense of completeness and mutual affirmation for work completed and the bitter-sweet feelings of parting have to be lived through.
And Beyond
The model seems to fit so far. If so, it should imply that we are finally ready to take on a greater participatory role in the larger church body. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. Let us not wait too long to remember this. A cohesive team performs far more effectively than a collection of individuals, and could be a vital force in driving many ministries forward. We already see some of our members undertaking roles in the upcoming BB/GB and Children's Church camps. We also see many other members organising meals, and even chalets. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. And if this is the most productive phase, we should give serious thought to what we want to produce, rather than random ad hoc events.
Not all groups achieve this, however. If, through the weakness of members or the intransigence of the leader, the barometric event is not achieved, the life of the group will stagnate and members will not find the group to be an environment in which they can mature. They will remain in a dependent condition and the group will never reach what Tuckman called the performing stage.
For Leaders
I think there are some clear lessons I have had the privilege of learning from being in this DG. First and foremost, if a group is 'doing ok', it may be time to initiate a crisis to move the group forward into the next stage. It will take a brave leader to initiate a change in direction and face up to the resultant rebellion, but it is through these shared hardships that friendships are forged. If not, the group will stagnate in the comfort zone until it withers away.
The full text of the Bennis and Shepard model may be found here. Search for "Barometric Event" on the page.
A sophisticated version of the developmental approach to understanding group process is the model of Bennis and Shepard. Bennis and Shepard adapted the ideas of Bion as a result of their studies of T-groups (a method originated by Lewin). They suggest that there is a progression between the different types of basic assumption group and that, in particular, the dependency and fight-flight groups tend to occur in the first part of a group's life while the pairing and work groups occur later and these two halves are divided from one another by what they call the "barometric event" which is an occurrence in which the relationship of the group to its leader/facilitator is irreversibly changed. Inter-member relations in the early phase are characterised by considerations of power whereas in the later phase the group becomes more personal (see table 2)
Table 2: Two main Stages of Group Development (Bennis & Shepard)
| Dependency -- Fight-flight | Power relationships |
| Barometric event | |
| Pairing -- Work group | Personal relationships |
What Bennis and Shepard are saying, therefore, is that the group has two main stages which each have sub-stages. In the first main stage, the group members are preoccupied by their relationship to the group leader. At first the members feel dependent. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. The group moves into the phase that Tuckman calls storming. This is, in Bion's terms, a fight-flight mode. Bennis and Shepard call it counter-dependency or, simply, rebellion. A struggle ensues. Eventually some resolution to this tension is achieved and this is cathartic for the group. Bennis and Shepard believed that the resolution of this first half of the group was a crucially important event and so they gave it the portentous label "barometric". Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. The leader is dethroned.
Stage One
In the first six months that I joined this DG, almost all the large-scale events were initiated by the two leaders. While most members were strongly committed to Wednesday studies, their attendance of other events waxed and waned depending on their outside social lives. They are anxious and in flight from responsibility, so they rely upon the leader to give them direction and provide nurturance. This is the dependency stage.
The crisis developed with the approach of our group mates' wedding. The leaders, as well as some very enthusiastic members, made the decision that the group would handle the church aspect of the wedding. Other members, whether due to unfamiliarity with the wedding couple, lack of personal talents or overburdened from other work already, were more hesitant to commit. Thus we entered the fight-flight stage. Inevitably, the direction, if any, given by the leader does not satisfy everybody and some resistance arises. Each member was then faced with the dilemna of how much to contribute to this team effort, if at all. Remember that in a church setting, all contribution is purely voluntary. (This is why John C. Maxwell calls it the the highest form of leadership.)
To my mind, our barometric event started on the eve of the wedding. Although there was no compulsion, almost the entire group gathered in the church around 11pm, to see how they could help. Surrounded by flowers, satin, and other assorted decorations, we were finally faced with the full prospect of our responsibilities. In addition to the decorations, various members also had to coordinate the music, the ushers and the cars. The situation was not helped by the absence of the leader who was in Europe. Fatigued from a week of work, but comforted by each others presence and the sense of shared purpose, various talents began to emerge as we saw sides of each other that would never have been unveiled on a typical Wednesday night. The wedding itself was very poignant, and as we listened to the bride and groom on stage, each person was filled with the sense of shared joy and accomplishment that we had made this happy occasion possible. Ideally, the outcome of the barometric event is that the leader becomes, to a much greater degree, a group member, and the members assume enhanced responsibility for the group's behaviour and direction. We also had the chance to indulge in more intimate conversations with group mates we might not have spoken to before, over several glasses of wine. (Wine always helps.) And hence we passed into the second phase of the group's life.
In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. Immediately after the barometric event, the group is likely to settle into a degree of complacency. What they have been struggling with now no longer seems like an important issue. This roughly corresponds to Tuckman's "norming" phase. Members agree with each other more readily. The group feels smooth, agreeable and unpressured. Bennis and Shepard regard this as a "flight" phase, and it may well be, in Bion's terms, a time when the group is unconsciously working on the "pairing" assumption. Relationships have become more important than work.
Stage Two
The second stage for us is a direct outcome of the barometric events. Lunch gatherings after church began to see record numbers of attendance, as did our Sunday afternoon games which even include DG-mates from other churches. We also began hanging out far more on the weekends, forsaking relationships with other cliques. In the second half of the life of the group, members are preoccupied with their relationships with each other. We are revelling in our new-found togetherness, and indulging in other group activities such as the recent DG Sharing on Oct 16. In this cruising mode, there is a risk that our new friendships may overshadow the original purpose of the DG: as a support group for Christ-centred bible study.
As this goes on, however, time pressure once again begins to be felt. Members begin to be aware that they do not have forever to do things. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. A new phase of struggle results. This time, however, members do not assume that it is the leader's responsibility to get things done. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. Finally, if all goes well, the group reaches a phase in which there is a sense of completeness and mutual affirmation for work completed and the bitter-sweet feelings of parting have to be lived through.
And Beyond
The model seems to fit so far. If so, it should imply that we are finally ready to take on a greater participatory role in the larger church body. The original goals and purposes of the group begin to be remembered. Let us not wait too long to remember this. A cohesive team performs far more effectively than a collection of individuals, and could be a vital force in driving many ministries forward. We already see some of our members undertaking roles in the upcoming BB/GB and Children's Church camps. We also see many other members organising meals, and even chalets. The consequence of the barometric event is now felt as "It is up to us". This then is a phase of inter-dependence, of work, and of reaching out: the most productive phase of the group life. And if this is the most productive phase, we should give serious thought to what we want to produce, rather than random ad hoc events.
Not all groups achieve this, however. If, through the weakness of members or the intransigence of the leader, the barometric event is not achieved, the life of the group will stagnate and members will not find the group to be an environment in which they can mature. They will remain in a dependent condition and the group will never reach what Tuckman called the performing stage.
For Leaders
I think there are some clear lessons I have had the privilege of learning from being in this DG. First and foremost, if a group is 'doing ok', it may be time to initiate a crisis to move the group forward into the next stage. It will take a brave leader to initiate a change in direction and face up to the resultant rebellion, but it is through these shared hardships that friendships are forged. If not, the group will stagnate in the comfort zone until it withers away.
The full text of the Bennis and Shepard model may be found here. Search for "Barometric Event" on the page.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
war and work revisited
Sometimes, your brain is so fried you can't string two coherent sentences together. So I'm going to try again, this time without all the academic references. My postulate is that war is like work, because both are inescapable downward spirals of misery.
The root of the problem is that war has no rules. In Arthurian times, knights were guided by a code of conduct. In modern times, we have learned that the victor writes the history books, and people will do whatever it takes to win a war. Snipers, land mines, asymetric warfare and terrorism are all examples that people no longer care about how a battle is won, as long as it is won. And faced with ruthless and unscrupulous adversaries, one has little choice but to follow suit or be destroyed. Thus, the conditions and atrocities of war get from bad to worse.
They say business is war, surely work is war too. In an environment where one aspires to outshine one's peers, people go to extreme lengths to curry favour with superiors. The worst symptom of this is the "if you're not working, you're not working hard enough" mindset. Efficiency and productivity are punished because your value to the organisation is measured in how late you go home, and whether you work on weekends, not how much work you actually produce. From the myriad of complaints I hear, this is a problem endemic to the entire country. And if this does not resonate with you, you probably get paid by the hour.
You work late; I work later. Like war, there are no rules at work. At least, there are no rules that say you have to leave by 7pm, if not you will get your pay cut for being inefficient. But if we do not correct this problem of work-life balance, we will never be able to stem the outflow of quitters searching greener pastures. But how does one reverse a trend that has almost become Singaporean culture?
I am thankful that for now, at least, I have a rare boss who does not subscribe to such practises. Sadly, he is an extremely capable man whose career advancement has obviously suffered because he dared to swim against the tide, and play by different rules. That's a whole problem on its own but for now, one gripe per post.
The root of the problem is that war has no rules. In Arthurian times, knights were guided by a code of conduct. In modern times, we have learned that the victor writes the history books, and people will do whatever it takes to win a war. Snipers, land mines, asymetric warfare and terrorism are all examples that people no longer care about how a battle is won, as long as it is won. And faced with ruthless and unscrupulous adversaries, one has little choice but to follow suit or be destroyed. Thus, the conditions and atrocities of war get from bad to worse.
They say business is war, surely work is war too. In an environment where one aspires to outshine one's peers, people go to extreme lengths to curry favour with superiors. The worst symptom of this is the "if you're not working, you're not working hard enough" mindset. Efficiency and productivity are punished because your value to the organisation is measured in how late you go home, and whether you work on weekends, not how much work you actually produce. From the myriad of complaints I hear, this is a problem endemic to the entire country. And if this does not resonate with you, you probably get paid by the hour.
You work late; I work later. Like war, there are no rules at work. At least, there are no rules that say you have to leave by 7pm, if not you will get your pay cut for being inefficient. But if we do not correct this problem of work-life balance, we will never be able to stem the outflow of quitters searching greener pastures. But how does one reverse a trend that has almost become Singaporean culture?
I am thankful that for now, at least, I have a rare boss who does not subscribe to such practises. Sadly, he is an extremely capable man whose career advancement has obviously suffered because he dared to swim against the tide, and play by different rules. That's a whole problem on its own but for now, one gripe per post.
Friday, October 14, 2005
towards total war and work
War didn't use to be so bad. In the feudal days, war was fought between knights (circa 1000 AD) or mercenary armies (circa 1500 AD), and peasants just got on with life and paid their dues to whoever happened to win. They also had a gentleman's code of conduct. Even in the hundred year's war between England and France, it was almost a side event between professional soldiers, as trading and diplomatic relations continued. But it gets worse.
During the French Revolution, Napoleon began the levée en masse (also known as conscription), and suddenly even unwilling people had to fight. In the American Civil War, Sherman laid waste to the South in his march to the sea, the first time a civilian population was targetted to starve the armies they supported. And with the firebombing of Dresden and the two atomic bombs, WWII employed the destruction of civilian population centres as a means to break the spirit of the nations. In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian army used mobs of children to clear minefields in advance of their ground troops.
This is total war - when every single person is thrown into the conflict, and life is a struggle for everyone, from the front line to the home front. There is no holding back. I sometimes feel that work is like total war.
For one thing, they are both downward spirals in the rat race for recognition and promotion. You work hard, I work harder. There are absolute gains in production (not productivity), but the relative standing is still the same. Everybody loses; but once you get caught in the trap, you cannot stop. You cannot work less hard. Instead, we compete to see who can stay in the office longer, who can handle the most projects, who can produce the most. And when it gets really bad, we start cutting each other down and stabbing backs.
And this problem is endemic to our Singaporean society and Chinese in general. We work so hard, but are we truly more productive or is it just blood, sweat and tears? Compare our official working hours with the Europeans, or even the Americans. Then compare the unofficial working hours to see how bad the situation really is. And yet they are still more productive than us! No wonder no one wants to work in Singapore, and everyone here wants to leave. But we have no natural resources and as Krugman puts it, we have run out of growth factors. So the only way to compete globally is to work ourselves into the ground.
In this total war, we are all losers.
During the French Revolution, Napoleon began the levée en masse (also known as conscription), and suddenly even unwilling people had to fight. In the American Civil War, Sherman laid waste to the South in his march to the sea, the first time a civilian population was targetted to starve the armies they supported. And with the firebombing of Dresden and the two atomic bombs, WWII employed the destruction of civilian population centres as a means to break the spirit of the nations. In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian army used mobs of children to clear minefields in advance of their ground troops.
This is total war - when every single person is thrown into the conflict, and life is a struggle for everyone, from the front line to the home front. There is no holding back. I sometimes feel that work is like total war.
For one thing, they are both downward spirals in the rat race for recognition and promotion. You work hard, I work harder. There are absolute gains in production (not productivity), but the relative standing is still the same. Everybody loses; but once you get caught in the trap, you cannot stop. You cannot work less hard. Instead, we compete to see who can stay in the office longer, who can handle the most projects, who can produce the most. And when it gets really bad, we start cutting each other down and stabbing backs.
And this problem is endemic to our Singaporean society and Chinese in general. We work so hard, but are we truly more productive or is it just blood, sweat and tears? Compare our official working hours with the Europeans, or even the Americans. Then compare the unofficial working hours to see how bad the situation really is. And yet they are still more productive than us! No wonder no one wants to work in Singapore, and everyone here wants to leave. But we have no natural resources and as Krugman puts it, we have run out of growth factors. So the only way to compete globally is to work ourselves into the ground.
In this total war, we are all losers.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
on work relationships
A colleague sat down next to me and decided to give me his analysis on interpersonal relationships in the workplace.
Downward Relationships are the most satisfying because you have the joy of watching the people under you develop and mature under your guidance; perhaps even in your own image. If this is done well, you earn their love and respect and you feel damn good but you can't eat love and respect. You may achieve a lot through your team, but this will only be fully recognised if your upwards relationship is correspondingly sound.
Upwards Relationships can be extremely rewarding in the financial or career sense if managed well. However, this generally involves a lot of ass-kissing, which in turn is extremely tiring and takes its toll on the spirit. Even if you are incompetant, you can still get places if you get enough superiors to speak up for you. You can never bluff your peers, though.
Horizontal Relationships are basically the tradeoff between the two in terms of satisfaction and utility. In addition, you also need to measure the paradigm of lateral comparisons and jealousy if you are doing too well. This is why it is the easiest relationship to sacrifice.
Call me idealistic, but I am going to try for the triple anyway. I believe that my subordinates will give me trust and respect as long as I am sincerely executing my responsibilities as a leader, looking out for their best interests. I will earn the respect of my peers through my own competence, while at the same time offering the hand of friendship that does not conceal a knife that stabs the back or slits the scapegoat. And my bosses will have to respect me for my exceptional abilities, and not merely an ability to make them feel good.
In my own experience thus far, it is certainly easier to advance if you just kiss up. But what's the point of living if you cannot live with yourself?
There are three main categories of relationships: upwards (with your bosses), horizontal (with your peers) and downwards (with subordinates). Each person will have to choose one of these to sacrifice, because it is not possible to maintain all three. And citing anecdotal evidence from superiors we both know, he went on to press his thesis that for most people, it is most beneficial to sacrifice the peer level. This was not a statement I could easily accept, because I would certainly wish to manage relations on all three fronts. But as I tried to find examples of people who had successfully balanced them all, I had to conclude that a balance only occured when they had not truly mastered any.This led me to conclude that the satisfaction derived from a relationship is inversely related to its utility.
Downward Relationships are the most satisfying because you have the joy of watching the people under you develop and mature under your guidance; perhaps even in your own image. If this is done well, you earn their love and respect and you feel damn good but you can't eat love and respect. You may achieve a lot through your team, but this will only be fully recognised if your upwards relationship is correspondingly sound.
Upwards Relationships can be extremely rewarding in the financial or career sense if managed well. However, this generally involves a lot of ass-kissing, which in turn is extremely tiring and takes its toll on the spirit. Even if you are incompetant, you can still get places if you get enough superiors to speak up for you. You can never bluff your peers, though.
Horizontal Relationships are basically the tradeoff between the two in terms of satisfaction and utility. In addition, you also need to measure the paradigm of lateral comparisons and jealousy if you are doing too well. This is why it is the easiest relationship to sacrifice.
Call me idealistic, but I am going to try for the triple anyway. I believe that my subordinates will give me trust and respect as long as I am sincerely executing my responsibilities as a leader, looking out for their best interests. I will earn the respect of my peers through my own competence, while at the same time offering the hand of friendship that does not conceal a knife that stabs the back or slits the scapegoat. And my bosses will have to respect me for my exceptional abilities, and not merely an ability to make them feel good.
In my own experience thus far, it is certainly easier to advance if you just kiss up. But what's the point of living if you cannot live with yourself?
Sunday, June 19, 2005
working in Singapore
In the light of my previous post, I find it mildly amusing that in the last two weeks, two friends have expressed their interest in working in Singapore. One from the UK, one from the US; neither is Singaporean. It just goes to show that grass is always greener on the other side I guess.
Actually, there are a lot of good reasons to work in Singapore that we probably don't fully appreciate. The first thing is the low tax rate, which is only 20% in Singapore but ranges from about 40-70% in Europe and America. The second is the low crime rate which is great for stumbling home drunk at night. And of course, there's the low cost of living and excellent public transport.
Then again, I'm not the sort that goes "I will work harder", so a slower pace of working life would be rather preferable.
Actually, there are a lot of good reasons to work in Singapore that we probably don't fully appreciate. The first thing is the low tax rate, which is only 20% in Singapore but ranges from about 40-70% in Europe and America. The second is the low crime rate which is great for stumbling home drunk at night. And of course, there's the low cost of living and excellent public transport.
Then again, I'm not the sort that goes "I will work harder", so a slower pace of working life would be rather preferable.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
work
I've been thinking a lot about work lately. I used to wonder why people would leave family and friends to migrate to Australia. I think at last I am beginning to get an inkling; partly because friends, especially those abroad, are always mortified at the working hours I have come to regard as normal. This post is dedicated to all my recent graduate friends, about to enter the workforce.
Meaning and Money
A year ago, a young friend told me that in all jobs, you either make a lot of money to do meaningless work, or you don't make enough money doing meaningful work. Because if you found the work enjoyable, then of course you wouldn't be paid much to do it. I scoffed at it at the time, I suspect because I didn't want to believe it. But it seems a fairly straightforward supply and demand principle and it's making more and more sense to me.
Industry and Efficiency
My colleagues have evolved an extremely dangerous culture. That of staying back late in the office, whether or not they actually have real work to do. It is so prevalent to find people working till 9 or 10 at night, and I believe this is true of many other industries in Singapore, not just my own. But are these people really industrious, or just plain inefficient? Whatever the case, they are digging a hole for all of us, because if the expectation becomes to stay late in the office, especially on weekends, that will not do any good for anyone.
The Fallacy of Potential
As a recent entrant to the workforce, I find the organisation trying to load me and overload me with work. The reason, ostensibly, is to determine how much potential I have. Well, just because I can do it, why should I do it, especially if this means sacrificing my own free time? Ever since watching Ducktales decades ago, I have adopted Scrouge McDuck's mantra of Work Smart Not Hard. It worked very well in school, and I have three degrees to show for it (in the time most people get one or two), while travelling across the continent and imbibing my fair share of spirits. But at work I find that to be capable simply means you get loaded with more work. Somehow, I have to establish myself as someone who is capable, but not a mindless peon who happily accomplish every meaningless task put before him.
I think about Singapore's competitiveness and the oft-credited wealth of human capital we have. And I wonder if our people are geniunely more capable and talented, or if it is merely because we work much harder, for longer hours. After all, we are the descendants of a Chinese diaspora that climbed the ladder in many societies through sheer hard work. It is people like us that are costing the Europeans their short work weeks, negligible working hours and social safety nets. They are losing the high quality of life they have been enjoying; how long before we lose what little quality of life we have now to the mainland Chinese?
I think it would be lovely to run off to Australia, but I wonder how long the good life there will last. There has to be a better solution.
Meaning and Money
A year ago, a young friend told me that in all jobs, you either make a lot of money to do meaningless work, or you don't make enough money doing meaningful work. Because if you found the work enjoyable, then of course you wouldn't be paid much to do it. I scoffed at it at the time, I suspect because I didn't want to believe it. But it seems a fairly straightforward supply and demand principle and it's making more and more sense to me.
Industry and Efficiency
My colleagues have evolved an extremely dangerous culture. That of staying back late in the office, whether or not they actually have real work to do. It is so prevalent to find people working till 9 or 10 at night, and I believe this is true of many other industries in Singapore, not just my own. But are these people really industrious, or just plain inefficient? Whatever the case, they are digging a hole for all of us, because if the expectation becomes to stay late in the office, especially on weekends, that will not do any good for anyone.
The Fallacy of Potential
As a recent entrant to the workforce, I find the organisation trying to load me and overload me with work. The reason, ostensibly, is to determine how much potential I have. Well, just because I can do it, why should I do it, especially if this means sacrificing my own free time? Ever since watching Ducktales decades ago, I have adopted Scrouge McDuck's mantra of Work Smart Not Hard. It worked very well in school, and I have three degrees to show for it (in the time most people get one or two), while travelling across the continent and imbibing my fair share of spirits. But at work I find that to be capable simply means you get loaded with more work. Somehow, I have to establish myself as someone who is capable, but not a mindless peon who happily accomplish every meaningless task put before him.
I think about Singapore's competitiveness and the oft-credited wealth of human capital we have. And I wonder if our people are geniunely more capable and talented, or if it is merely because we work much harder, for longer hours. After all, we are the descendants of a Chinese diaspora that climbed the ladder in many societies through sheer hard work. It is people like us that are costing the Europeans their short work weeks, negligible working hours and social safety nets. They are losing the high quality of life they have been enjoying; how long before we lose what little quality of life we have now to the mainland Chinese?
I think it would be lovely to run off to Australia, but I wonder how long the good life there will last. There has to be a better solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
