Hamsters On A Wheel

(this comment first appeared in the Singapore Angle in November 2008)

Since the independence of our island-nation, the establishment has sought to inundate its citizens with the value of being hamsters on a wheel -- that somehow there is a worthwhile payoff for being busy by going nowhere fast, and somehow the payoff seems to get larger the faster the hamster goes nowhere. And I suppose the hamster can experience the payoff as he earns another peanut, while conveniently ignoring that the wheel he runs on keeps the establishment warm at night (incidentally if anyone tries this at home, don't be surprised to have SPCA knocking on your door lol).

Which is perhaps why some hamsters choose to groom themselves better than the others, in the hope that they will be rewarded with more peanuts. Some may choose to run on the wheels longer than others for additional pet massage time, even if they cannot really understand why the establishment would value the powering up of one additional lantern (pet massages are of high perceived value to hamsters in case you are wondering). These are the hamsters who will leave when the establishment has no more food, or when another locale has better food (for the sake of argument, hamsters have freedom of movement).

And if hamsters somehow get the idea that they will still be fed without running on the wheel, they are sorely mistaken. Firstly, there will always be hamsters who are willing to run on the wheel, even if they are originally guinea pigs from another locale. Secondly, hamsters that don't perform on the wheel as they should will be replaced by new, hungry and, dare I say, more cost-effective ones. In this sense, hamsters who skive don't really bother the establishment; things will thus carry on regardless. Asking hamsters for their opinion is simply for (mutual?) entertainment.

Lady hamsters (please take this tongue-in-cheek as guy hamsters are not known for being exceptionally tactful) do not have much of a struggle compared to their male counterparts. The dissonance between peanuts and freedom tends not to apply as much to lady hamsters. For this group (in general), the game plan is to run as steadily as one can, raise a few baby hamsters, and gently lobby for as equal number of peanuts as guy hamsters when the opportunity arises. And if this means teaching newly-formed hamsters the (economic) value of being one, so be it -- they are not known to be particularly argumentative, except when having a discussion with their guy partners ;-)

Having covered the local situation, let's turn to hamsters abroad (hopefully I'm not stealing your thunder, Wayne!). Perhaps local hamsters view them with envy, that somehow there ought to be more peanuts 'over there', and wonder why they cannot have the same where they are. Perhaps overseas hamsters view local hamsters as weak and dependent, and may occasionally return to cause a minor mess to the establishment (through their droppings perhaps). Neither is desirable, because when a burglar enters to steal valuables (hamster food included perhaps?), the hamsters will scatter. Which self-respecting hamster would stay in a place where there are no peanuts?

I believe what the establishment needs are not so much hamsters (yes I know they keep one can warm at night -- don't try this, seriously, SPCA is watching!), but a Jack Russell Terrier (JRT). JRT's are intelligent, resourceful, observant, cute, quirky, and yes, some of them can be rather loud at times (JRTs call this 'an independent streak').

However, JRT's are fiercely loyal to the cause, not only because they do have ample dog food, but more importantly because through *interaction* with the establishment over the centuries, a mutual understanding of substantial meaning between the two has been reached. It is said that JRTs are among a select breed of dog that intimately understand facial, vocal and kinesthetic cues of humans, so much so that even before trouble strikes, the JRT alerts the owner. And rest assured that when burglars attempt entry without the establishment being around, JRTs rally to the cause, and battle tooth and nail to ensure its turf, even if they are next door exploring the next place to bury their favourite bone.

These are increasingly uncertain times. Eighteen months ago it seemed that there were plenty of peanuts to go around. Hamsters are sorely ineffectual during stormy seasons. If the establishment truly wants to safeguard this island's shores, get a JRT, and treat it like one i.e. no peanuts please!

On Talent

Book review by Thomas Heng

Talent is an oft-misconstrued concept, according to a bestseller by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman. First, Break All the Rules is not nearly as radical as the title suggests. However, it does contain some revolutionary insights into what makes great organisations work, or rather, what great managers in these organisations realise that others already know but somehow don't put into practice. Central to this work is the way great managers approach the issue of Talent, and what they do to harness it for the benefit of all concerned.

In the maze of business jargon, one is bombarded with 'words of wisdom' or 'catchphrases' that seem to say much but in fact mean precious little, or the meaning of these well-intended utterings is so disparate that one is too confused to admit the face, and yet out of sheer frustration, uses them willy-nilly anyway. Surrounding the word Talent are its poor cousins Skills and Knowledge, and its even poorer relations twice-removed, Competencies, Habits, Attitudes and Drive. The key to sorting out this royal mess may be to simply ask, 'Which of these are easily modified through management, and which are not?'

For a start, if the word Talent suggests something that is innate, then Skills and Knowledge are learnt attributes, no matter if one has honed it since age 13 or age 30. For instance, being able to do arithmetic or science is a Skill, as these can be taught by steps. Knowledge however is the sum total of what one, um, knows, for example knowing the Highway Code, or knowing when to close a sale -- one gains Knowledge through learning and experiencing all that life has to offer.

That leaves Talent, which one can best summarise as 'that which is embedded deep within one's being that cannot be passed on easily to another with desirable consequences'. I suppose one of the classic examples would be to train a bubbly, outgoing, spontaneous person to remain cooped up in an office with no windows and one door, where all that needs to be done is typing and verifying accounts, and to expect this person to love doing it week in week out without a single word of complaint! Clearly you would agree that this person isn't really doing a job that s/he loves... Personally, Talent can be further broken down to Motivation (what drives someone), Psychology (how someone thinks) and Sociability (how someone relates to others).

At this point it would be useful to add that Talent is not confined to an exclusive set of individuals; each person is Talented in his/her unique way. The unfortunate situation is that in a 'meritocracy' such as ours, Talents are often suppressed by historical facts of past academic achievements. Take a closer look at the bus captain as he goes about his routine, and see if you can find the unique Talents required to persist in such a role day in, day out. If anything needs to be raised it's not bus fares, but bus captains' salaries!

Conventional wisdom holds that Competencies, Habits, Attitudes and Drive are manageable parts of a whole that, if tweaks often and long enough, will somehow transform the struggling employee into something Perfect. I cannot emphasise enough that nothing can be further than the truth. First let's take a look at Competencies; just what on earth are they, something trainable? Can one truly impart Creativity, or is it something that needs to be drawn out? Great managers are able to identify and discard language that doesn't serve their ultimate purpose: the betterment of the employee for the betterment of all involved.

Habits are behavioural, and can be changed with effort, but then again this requires management of the utmost sensitivity. The best person to drive such an effort is the employee and not anyone else, as it should be one's journey to learn through experience what Talents one already possesses can be best placed into one's work, social and personal life.

Attitudes are innate. There, I said it. The next time you hear someone say 'Change your attitude' you are most welcome to quote me ;-) The key to management is knowing how to best place the Talents at one's disposal; there is nothing worse than a Talented employee placed in the wrong job, as square pegs in round holes would undoubtedly agree.

Similarly, Drive is nothing more than an imitation for Motivation, waiting to be charged with identity theft. I'm not sure why some managers insist on lighting metaphorical fires to see how employees would squirm, as if somehow the Drive would miraculously surface and by some act of God, remain in sustainable fashion. There is only so much fear that can be imparted into employees before they bail out of the organisation altogether, regardless of their affinity to the enterprise prior to the implementation of such scare tactics.

Management is not easy, nor is it meant to be. Lighting fires to uncover Talent is as effective as burning plywood in search of virgin wood; one simply cannot hope to find a particular Talent by destroying the other Talents. However, with a little objectivity, one can still build a decent wardrobe with the plywood one has at hand, while continuing to seek out the virgin wood that one desires.