This is one man that I really admire. His thinking is different from others and unique in that sense. His approach to an issue is simply amazing. He is known as the outspoken leader among the world leaders. He dared to condemn the US in front of Bush. He really looks far ahead from the time. His mission and vision is undisputable. He led the country for 22 years and he brought so many successes to the nation. He puts Malaysia in the world map. His speech is very interesting to listen to. I am very sure during his reign as the President of UMNO, people would be waiting for his closing speech at every UMNO general assembly. People had been waiting for that moment because they knew it that Tun was going to deliver something different and something special. So far, I personally do not see any of our leaders can get close to Tun's standard. I mean, if we were to use Tun as the benchmark for Prime Minister, no one is fit to be in that position. Not even Anwar Ibrahim. Pak Lah is very far behind. However, to compare our current leaders with Tun is not a fair thing to do, as everybody has his own uniqueness in one way or another.
Having said all of the above, with due respect to the late Tunku Abdul Rahman, the late Tun Hussein Onn and the late Tun Abdul Razak, I used to believe that Tun was a great leader the Malaysians have ever had. However, such belief has started to erode when Tun started to criticise Pak Lah's administration and Pak Lah's capability as a leader.
To me, a great leader of a nation is not only someone who manages the country in the most appropriate way and brings more prosperous to the nation or someone with the quality I mentioned earlier, but more importantly is someone who has a very good succession planning and a very capable deputy to take over from him and whose credibility is not in dispute. A great leader must ensure that his deputy or whoever that is going to succeed him will continue with the mission and vision that he has set. Unfortunately for Tun, while he has all the qualities mentioned earlier, he has failed to develop his subordinates to become a competent successor for him. In fact, he is the one who very loudly and outspokenly criticised his successor of his own choice. To me, every time Tun condemned and criticised Pak Lah for being a weak leader who is being controlled by his son in law, his criticism is actually reflects his (Tun) credibility as the past leader. 22 years at helm, what has he (Tun) done to ensure that Malaysia will move forward towards achieving the fully develop nation status after he stepped down? During the 22 years of his tenure as the PM of Malaysia, he had had 4 different deputies from Musa Hitam, the late Tun Ghaffar Baba, Anwar Ibrahim and Pak Lah. What has he done to his four deputies? Did he really develop them to become a great leader? To me, 22 years is not a short period of time. A lot of development process (in term of succession planning) can be done. With three deputies (minus the late Tun Ghaffar Baba), Tun should not have any problem in choosing the most suitable candidate to replace him. Unfortunately, Tun lacks one criterion for being a great leader.
To make things worst, Tun claimed that he preferred Najib than Pak Lah to replace him as the PM. If that was the case, why then he chose Pak Lah over Najib in the first place? He also claimed to have a gentleman agreement with Pak Lah for the latter to be the PM for one term only. Well, whether there was such an arrangement or not, only the two of them and Allah knows. But the question is why did Tun need to have such an arrangement? To me, all these factors reflect Tun’s credibility as a leader, which to that extent can be questioned. Was he really a great leader?
To me, Tun is just a good leader.
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Monday, April 21, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Ten Habits of incompetent managers
Worth sharing. Got it through email. So, as you read the passage, "I" means the authour and not me.
GOOD to read for all managers and going-to-be managers
How do you identify the members of your team that could sink it? Get an expert's tips on the signs you should look for.
Three years ago, I joined the board of a company whose management, I soon recognized, was incompetent. I said so, but I was a new board member and the management had a lot of old friends and allies on the board. I was listened to respectfully but nothing much happened.
Three years on, the board has recognized that the management is incompetent.
The consequences of leaving them alone for three years now threaten to sink the company. We've fired one manager and hope to stay afloat long enough to replace the other. A few generous board members, with good memories, have acknowledged that we would not be in this pickle had I been listened to in the first place. But how did I know these managers were incompetent? I'm not a seer and, trust me, I'm not gloating. But I knew they were incompetent because I've hired and fired so many incompetent people myself. Every experienced manager has; you probably remember yours. So what hallmarks of incompetence have I learned to identify?
Bias against action: There are always plenty of reasons not to take a decision, reasons to wait for more information, more options, more opinions.
But real leaders display a consistent bias for action. People who don't make mistakes generally don't make anything. Legendary ad man David Ogilvy argued that a good decision today is worth far more than a perfect decision next month. Beware prevaricators.
Secrecy: "We can't tell the staff," is something I hear managers say repeatedly. They defend this position with the argument that staff will be distracted, confused or simply unable to comprehend what is happening in the business. If you treat employees like children, they will behave that way - which means trouble. If you treat them like adults, they may just respond likewise. Very few matters in business must remain confidential and good managers can identify those easily. The lover of secrecy has trouble being honest and is afraid of letting peers have the information they need to challenge him. He would rather defend his position than advance the mission.
Secrets make companies political, anxious and full of distrust.
Over-sensitivity : "I know she's always late, but if I raise the subject, she'll be hurt." An inability to be direct and honest with staff is a critical warning sign. Can your manager see a problem, address it headlong and move on? If not, problems won't get resolved, they'll grow. When managers say staff is too sensitive, they are usually describing themselves.
Wilting violets don't make great leaders. Weed them out. Interestingly, secrecy and over-sensitivity almost always travel together. They are a bias against honesty.
Love of procedure: Managers who cleave to the rule book, to points of order and who refer to colleagues by their titles have forgotten that rules and processes exist to expedite business, not ritualize it. Love of procedure often masks a fatal inability to prioritize - a tendency to polish the silver while the house is burning.
Preference for weak candidates: We interviewed three job candidates for a new position. One was clearly too junior, the other rubbed everyone up the wrong way and the third stood head and shoulders above the rest. Who did our manager want to hire? The junior. She felt threatened by the super-competent manager and hadn't the confidence to know that you must always hire people smarter than yourself.
Focus on small tasks: Another senior salesperson I hired always produced the most perfect charts, forecasts and spreadsheets. She was always on time, her data completely up-to-date. She would always volunteer for projects in which she had no core expertise - marketing plans, financial forecasts, meetings with bank managers, the office move. It was all displacement activity to hide the fact that she could not do her real job.
Allergy to deadlines: A deadline is a commitment. The manager who cannot set, and stick to deadlines, cannot honor commitments. A failure to set and meet deadlines also means that no one can ever feel a true sense of achievement. You can't celebrate milestones if there aren't any.
Inability to hire former employees: I hired a head of sales once with
(apparently) a luminous reputation. But, as we staffed up, he never attracted any candidates from his old company. He'd worked in sales for twenty years - hadn't he mentored anyone who'd want to work with him again?
Every good manager has alumni, eager to join the team again; if they don't, smell a rat.
Addiction to consultants: A common - but expensive - way to put off making decisions is to hire consultants who can recommend several alternatives.
While they're figuring these out, managers don't have to do anything. And when the consultant's choices are presented, the ensuing debates can often absorb hours, days, months. Meanwhile, your organization is poorer but it isn't any smarter. When the consultant leaves, he takes your money and his increased expertise out the door with him.
Long hours: In my experience, bad managers work very long hours. They think this is a brand of heroism but it is probably the single biggest hallmark of incompetence. To work effectively, you must prioritize and you must pace yourself. The manager who boasts of late nights, early mornings and no time off cannot manage himself so you'd better not let him manage anyone else.
Any one of these behaviours should sound a warning bell. More than two - sound the alarm!
GOOD to read for all managers and going-to-be managers
How do you identify the members of your team that could sink it? Get an expert's tips on the signs you should look for.
Three years ago, I joined the board of a company whose management, I soon recognized, was incompetent. I said so, but I was a new board member and the management had a lot of old friends and allies on the board. I was listened to respectfully but nothing much happened.
Three years on, the board has recognized that the management is incompetent.
The consequences of leaving them alone for three years now threaten to sink the company. We've fired one manager and hope to stay afloat long enough to replace the other. A few generous board members, with good memories, have acknowledged that we would not be in this pickle had I been listened to in the first place. But how did I know these managers were incompetent? I'm not a seer and, trust me, I'm not gloating. But I knew they were incompetent because I've hired and fired so many incompetent people myself. Every experienced manager has; you probably remember yours. So what hallmarks of incompetence have I learned to identify?
Bias against action: There are always plenty of reasons not to take a decision, reasons to wait for more information, more options, more opinions.
But real leaders display a consistent bias for action. People who don't make mistakes generally don't make anything. Legendary ad man David Ogilvy argued that a good decision today is worth far more than a perfect decision next month. Beware prevaricators.
Secrecy: "We can't tell the staff," is something I hear managers say repeatedly. They defend this position with the argument that staff will be distracted, confused or simply unable to comprehend what is happening in the business. If you treat employees like children, they will behave that way - which means trouble. If you treat them like adults, they may just respond likewise. Very few matters in business must remain confidential and good managers can identify those easily. The lover of secrecy has trouble being honest and is afraid of letting peers have the information they need to challenge him. He would rather defend his position than advance the mission.
Secrets make companies political, anxious and full of distrust.
Over-sensitivity : "I know she's always late, but if I raise the subject, she'll be hurt." An inability to be direct and honest with staff is a critical warning sign. Can your manager see a problem, address it headlong and move on? If not, problems won't get resolved, they'll grow. When managers say staff is too sensitive, they are usually describing themselves.
Wilting violets don't make great leaders. Weed them out. Interestingly, secrecy and over-sensitivity almost always travel together. They are a bias against honesty.
Love of procedure: Managers who cleave to the rule book, to points of order and who refer to colleagues by their titles have forgotten that rules and processes exist to expedite business, not ritualize it. Love of procedure often masks a fatal inability to prioritize - a tendency to polish the silver while the house is burning.
Preference for weak candidates: We interviewed three job candidates for a new position. One was clearly too junior, the other rubbed everyone up the wrong way and the third stood head and shoulders above the rest. Who did our manager want to hire? The junior. She felt threatened by the super-competent manager and hadn't the confidence to know that you must always hire people smarter than yourself.
Focus on small tasks: Another senior salesperson I hired always produced the most perfect charts, forecasts and spreadsheets. She was always on time, her data completely up-to-date. She would always volunteer for projects in which she had no core expertise - marketing plans, financial forecasts, meetings with bank managers, the office move. It was all displacement activity to hide the fact that she could not do her real job.
Allergy to deadlines: A deadline is a commitment. The manager who cannot set, and stick to deadlines, cannot honor commitments. A failure to set and meet deadlines also means that no one can ever feel a true sense of achievement. You can't celebrate milestones if there aren't any.
Inability to hire former employees: I hired a head of sales once with
(apparently) a luminous reputation. But, as we staffed up, he never attracted any candidates from his old company. He'd worked in sales for twenty years - hadn't he mentored anyone who'd want to work with him again?
Every good manager has alumni, eager to join the team again; if they don't, smell a rat.
Addiction to consultants: A common - but expensive - way to put off making decisions is to hire consultants who can recommend several alternatives.
While they're figuring these out, managers don't have to do anything. And when the consultant's choices are presented, the ensuing debates can often absorb hours, days, months. Meanwhile, your organization is poorer but it isn't any smarter. When the consultant leaves, he takes your money and his increased expertise out the door with him.
Long hours: In my experience, bad managers work very long hours. They think this is a brand of heroism but it is probably the single biggest hallmark of incompetence. To work effectively, you must prioritize and you must pace yourself. The manager who boasts of late nights, early mornings and no time off cannot manage himself so you'd better not let him manage anyone else.
Any one of these behaviours should sound a warning bell. More than two - sound the alarm!
Friday, April 11, 2008
The Differences between A Manager and A Leader
I received an email on this and I think it is worth to share with you guys.
1. the manager drives people, the leader coaches them
2. the manager depends on authority, the leader on goodwill
3. the manager inspires fear, the leader inspires enthusiasm
4. the manager says I, the leader says we
5. the manager says get here on time, the leader gets there ahead of time
6. the manager fixes blame for the breakdown, the leader fixes the breakdown
7. the manager knows how it is done, the leader shows how
8. the manager says go, the leader says let's go
9. the manager uses people, the leader develops them
10.the manager sees today, the leader also looks at tomorrow
11.the manager commands, the leader asks
12.the manager never has enough time, the leader makes time for things that count
13.the manager is concerned with things, the leader is concerned with people
14.the manager works hard to produce, the leader works hard to help people to produce
15.the manager takes the credit, the leader gives it
so which one is your boss? or more importantly .. which one is you?
1. the manager drives people, the leader coaches them
2. the manager depends on authority, the leader on goodwill
3. the manager inspires fear, the leader inspires enthusiasm
4. the manager says I, the leader says we
5. the manager says get here on time, the leader gets there ahead of time
6. the manager fixes blame for the breakdown, the leader fixes the breakdown
7. the manager knows how it is done, the leader shows how
8. the manager says go, the leader says let's go
9. the manager uses people, the leader develops them
10.the manager sees today, the leader also looks at tomorrow
11.the manager commands, the leader asks
12.the manager never has enough time, the leader makes time for things that count
13.the manager is concerned with things, the leader is concerned with people
14.the manager works hard to produce, the leader works hard to help people to produce
15.the manager takes the credit, the leader gives it
so which one is your boss? or more importantly .. which one is you?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
'Adil (Justice)
Allah said in Al-Qur'an: "Fa iza hakamtum bainan nassi an tahkumu bil 'adl" which means "if you punish among the human being, you must punish in fairness/justice".
The above Qur'anic verse is simple and seems to be straightforward but it is not. Allah said punish in fairness/justice. But what is fairness/justice? Justice is to put something in its place. The meaning is wide enough to cover a lot of things from the appointment of ruler/leader to the implementation of Syariah laws. Have we been treated fairly so far by our leaders? At a glance, we may say yes but if we think in depth, we may say otherwise. The laws that should be implemented by a Muslim leader/government is the Syariah laws as demonstrated in the Qur'an and Hadith. More so in our country that claimed to be an Islamic country and alleged that a lot of other Islamic countries are admiring its "Islamic" concept.
However, in Malaysia, what laws are being implemented? Is it Islamic laws? We do not need a genius to figure out that. Even an ordinary citizen of our country knows that we are upholding the law that was introduced by the British and sidelined our own Islamic laws. Funny isn't it? An Islamic Counrty is unable to uphold Islamic laws. This is further proven under Article 4 of our Federal Constitution, which provides that "this Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void".
In Islam, our utmost guidance is the Qur'an and Hadith. There shall be no other book or laws higher than the divine book, Al-Qur'an. But the said Article 4 stated otherwise. Even if the Syariah laws is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, the Syariah laws, which is a divine laws that comes from Allah the Almighty shall, to that extent, be void.
After 50 years of independence, we are still following the British laws that was drafted by the Reid Commission. Are we fully independent?
In my humble opinion, our leaders/government, after 50 years of “independence” and run the country on their own, still fail to uphold and put the Islamic laws vis-à-vis Al-Qur’an in its proper place. Have they done justice to us? My answer is absolutely “no”. While our leaders proudly and always tell the people and the whole world that Malaysia is an Islamic country (may be because we are member of OIC), I seriously think that they need to be guided by the following hadith: -
Narrated by Ma’qil:-
The Prophet (pbuh) said, “If any ruler having the authority to rule Muslim subjects dies while he is deceiving them, Allah will forbid paradise for him”.
-rawahul bukhari-
Wallahu ‘alam…
The above Qur'anic verse is simple and seems to be straightforward but it is not. Allah said punish in fairness/justice. But what is fairness/justice? Justice is to put something in its place. The meaning is wide enough to cover a lot of things from the appointment of ruler/leader to the implementation of Syariah laws. Have we been treated fairly so far by our leaders? At a glance, we may say yes but if we think in depth, we may say otherwise. The laws that should be implemented by a Muslim leader/government is the Syariah laws as demonstrated in the Qur'an and Hadith. More so in our country that claimed to be an Islamic country and alleged that a lot of other Islamic countries are admiring its "Islamic" concept.
However, in Malaysia, what laws are being implemented? Is it Islamic laws? We do not need a genius to figure out that. Even an ordinary citizen of our country knows that we are upholding the law that was introduced by the British and sidelined our own Islamic laws. Funny isn't it? An Islamic Counrty is unable to uphold Islamic laws. This is further proven under Article 4 of our Federal Constitution, which provides that "this Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void".
In Islam, our utmost guidance is the Qur'an and Hadith. There shall be no other book or laws higher than the divine book, Al-Qur'an. But the said Article 4 stated otherwise. Even if the Syariah laws is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution, the Syariah laws, which is a divine laws that comes from Allah the Almighty shall, to that extent, be void.
After 50 years of independence, we are still following the British laws that was drafted by the Reid Commission. Are we fully independent?
In my humble opinion, our leaders/government, after 50 years of “independence” and run the country on their own, still fail to uphold and put the Islamic laws vis-à-vis Al-Qur’an in its proper place. Have they done justice to us? My answer is absolutely “no”. While our leaders proudly and always tell the people and the whole world that Malaysia is an Islamic country (may be because we are member of OIC), I seriously think that they need to be guided by the following hadith: -
Narrated by Ma’qil:-
The Prophet (pbuh) said, “If any ruler having the authority to rule Muslim subjects dies while he is deceiving them, Allah will forbid paradise for him”.
-rawahul bukhari-
Wallahu ‘alam…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
