TR EMERITUS

Satya Nadella Microsoft share price moved up from $46 in 2014 when Satya Nadella become CEO to $136 now (increase of 3 times in 5 years). He did a great job to turn Microsoft around. Here are some lessons from his leadership style. When Satya Nadella joined Microsoft in 1992 at the age of 25, the future CEO, an engineer by training, did not yet hold a business degree. He would complete his MBA at the University of Chicago five years later, without taking time off from his full-time job. Every Friday night, Nadella would board a plane from Seattle to Chicago, and return by Monday morning. “It used to blow me away, how hard he used to work,” former Microsoft executive Sanjay Parthasarathy. Nadella, who succeeded Steve Ballmer as head of Microsoft in 2014, visited his alma mater, where he was interviewed on stage by Madhav Rajan, dean of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. According to a recap on the school’s website, Nadella said that a lot of the MBA students were, like him, fairly experienced and knowledgeable before they had even started their studies. What he said school could offer them, among other things, is an opportunity to cultivate leadership traits, including the three attributes he said Microsoft looks for in job candidates. As it happens, much of his guidance serves as decent life advice, too. Attribute #1: The ability to create clarity when none exists This is “the most important attribute that any leader needs to have—and it is often underestimated,” Nadella said. “You don’t need a leader when everything is well defined and it’s easy, and all you have got to do is follow a well-written plan. But in an ambiguous situation, where there cannot be complete information, that is when leadership will matter.” He continued: “The people who are capable of getting into a situation where there is in some sense panic, and who can bring first clarity on what to do next—that is invaluable.” Attribute #2: A knack for sparking energy Along with clarity, a leader needs to bring sincere enthusiasm, Nadella argued. “One of the classic things you face as a leader is, you will have someone walk into your office and say, ‘Hey you know what, I’m very good, my team is very good, but everything around me is terrible,’” he said. “That’s not creating energy.” This is a theme Nadella also visits in his recent memoir, Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft’s Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone (Harper Collins, 2017). “Leaders generate energy, not only on their own teams but across the company,” he writes. “It’s insufficient to focus exclusively on your own unit. Leaders need to inspire optimism, creativity, shared commitment and growth through times good and bad.” To be a leader, he told Booth students, “you have got to be at your evangelical best. You have got to have followership all around you.” Attribute #3: An ability to succeed in “an over-constrained space” His advice for cultivating a third trait feels applicable to anyone, not only those who are ambitious in business. “When leaders come in and say, ‘I’m not able to do this or I’m not able to drive success or achieve success because of all these exogenous factors.’ Guess what? Everything is exogenous,” he said. “Life is an over-constraint problem. So you can’t say, ‘You know what, I’m just waiting for you to remove all the constraints, and I’ll be perfect.’   Tan Kin Lian        Read More →

At the conclusion of the infamous Gettysburg Address on 19 November 1863, Abraham Lincoln summed up an ideal government as follows: “… that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Let us first examine the significances of the above statement. ·       The term “government of the people” means that the country shall ideally be governed by local citizens of the country, rather than by foreigners. ·       The term “government by the people” endorses democracy, that is, the ideal government is to be duly and fairly elected by the people. ·       The term “government for the people” means that the government should always act in the interests of the people, rather than in the interest of itself or of any foreign entity. Within the span of one sentence, Abraham Lincoln laid down the essences of an ideal government. The Situation in Hong Kong We now examine the current situation in Hong Kong with respect to the Chief Executive, Carrie Lam. While Carrie Lam was born in Hong Kong, her entire family (husband, 2 sons and herself) took up British citizenship.  In 2007, only Carrie renounced her British citizenship so that she could take up the principal official post in the Hong Kong SAR government.  While the readers need to decide if this qualifies the “government of the people”, one cannot help wondering if her heart is truly with Hong Kong. Carrie Lam was appointed by China to take up the post of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and was never freely voted by Hong Kong citizens for her current position.  With 2 million Hong Kong citizens taking to the street to demand for her resignation, it is probably safe to conclude that she is probably not the people’s choice for the position of Chief Executive, that is, this is hardly a case of “government by the people”. Finally, it was not obvious why Carrie Lam wanted to introduce the extradition bill, which triggered the massive protests until today.  To begin with, one can search the internet and find numerous articles alleging that China police have secretly infiltrated into Hong Kong to arrest anti-China protesters and to kidnap and bring them into China.  The current unhappiness might have been triggered by the perception that the extradition bill only serves to make this process legal. A critical question is to understand why Carrie Lam would want to introduce this bill, especially if China had not demanded her to so.  Of course, conspiracy theory may suggest that China might have demanded this bill to be elected, or at least strongly hinted that they wanted this bill to be made official.  Leaving these arguments aside, the critical question is in what ways is the establishment of the extradition bill aligned to the interests of Hong Kong citizens, that is, is this a case of “government for the people”? A check on Wikipedia indicates that Hong Kong citizens’ unhappiness might have been building up over some time and the extradition bill merely served as the straw that broke the camel’s back.  In particular, an interesting consideration is whether the clamping down of pro-democracy elements is aligned to the interests of Hong Kong citizens? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Lam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Lam_as_Chief_Executive_of_Hong_Kong Nevertheless, it is probably safe to conclude that the massive protests suggested that most Hong Kong citizens perceived Carrie Lam is not acting in the interests of Hong Kong citizens.  However, interestingly enough, even at this moment, Carrie Lam insisted on not stepping down so that she can continue to serve the people in Hong Kong.  So exactly what does Carrie Lam mean when she continues to cling on to the position of the Chief Executive to serve the people, at that time when 2 million people (out of a 7.5 million population) wanted her to step down? Of course, conspiracy theory may suggest that China disallowed her to step down.  If she steps down now, it may be a precedence that Hong Kong citizens may rally and protest against any future Chief Executive to force his resignation, something that is a definite no-no for China.  Worse still, massive protests may erupt in China if this massive-protests-lead-to-stepping-down culture spreads from Hong Kong into China.  Hence, Carrie Lam might could not step down simply because China might have threatened her that she would face huge negative consequences if she does so. The Situation in Singapore Of course, it is always easier to look at other peoples’ problems as bystanders.  The important question for all of us here in Singapore is whether our current system fares in the three points with regards to the formation of a good government. ·       How many of our ministers and MPs are born and breed in Singapore, with their hearts to Singapore? ·       Are our ministers and MPs elected into power on totally level playing field?  Do Singaporeans choose to elect our ministers and MPs based on the conviction that we really wanted them to govern the country, and not because of fear or flavour?  Equally important, are people afraid of joining Alternative Parties to voice out opinions that may not align to the incumbent Party’s stance? ·       Are our ministers and MPs dedicated to act in the interests of Singaporeans and not for their own vested interests, especially in the areas of office appointments, renumerations and turf protection? While I am no Abraham Lincoln, I think that we also need to consider a fourth critical criterion of an ideal government, namely, competency.  In order words, are the elected officials competent to govern the country and to lead the country into greater heights? If local monkeys are duly and fairly elected to govern the country, the country will only go downhill even if the monkeys are 100% dedicated to act in the interests of the country. One thing I will caution is this.  I personally feel that a person refusing to step down in order to "continue serving the people", especially when the people wanted the person to step down, does not command any legitimacy of governance authority.  If one is not given the mandate by the people, any attempt to stay in power in order "to serve the people" is pure nonsense. On the other hand, we need to cultivate mutual respect in a democratic country.  If majority votes for a party or candidate that we do not like, we have to respect the decision of the majority and not call them “stupid” or “daft” simply because their opinions differ from ours.  Just as we may feel strongly on some issues, we have to respect the fact that other people may have equally strong feelings on the same issues and that their opinions may be different from us.  That is why, it is a case of one-person-one-vote in a democratic system. Of course, I have my own opinions on these issues and I am sure readers in this forum have their own views.  Nevertheless, I believe all Singaporeans, including the ministers and MPs themselves, should critically examine these issues before the next General Election.  The choice of a good and competent government can and will make large difference towards how our country can progress forward.   Linda Chopra      Read More →

In Michael Barrs 2014 book, “The Ruling Elite of Singapore” he has done a very detailed analysis of our scholarship system. It is interesting to note that up until 2008 just over 96% have gone to Chinese students and 80% of those are attendees of the Raffles and Hwa Chong Family of schools. This does not look much like “all schools are good schools” and that we are meritocratically searching Singapore to promote and support the best and brightest and despite the rhetoric it does not seem to have changed much in the last 10 years. Elsewhere in the world, scholarships are generally awarded to bright pupils with potential that come from all walks of life but cannot afford further education themselves but here they have become a badge of status with hundreds of thousands of public funds routinely given to children whose parents almost unanimously can well afford to pay for it themselves. For example, current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his son Li Hong Yi both got government scholarships. In fact, Lee Hsien Loong got two, a President scholarship and the SAF overseas scholarship. Tony Tan’s son and daughter both got Presidents scholarships (His son also got that infamous 12 year National Service deferment but that is another story). Mah Bow Tan’s son got the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)’s scholarship, and this is just a few of the more notable ones. We also know from Wikileaks that Assistant Director of Planning Division at the Ministry of Education (MOE) Cheryl Chan was reported saying that, “the government does not plan to encourage more students to get a higher education” and “The university enrolment rate will continue to be maintained at 20-25 percent because the Singaporean labor market does not need everyone to get a four-year degree,” which along with our ever more exclusionary university acceptance rules for those limited spaces and the limiting of CPF funds for further education only to those excluding institutions shows there are very big barriers to getting the education base for success if you are not well off. So in Singapore it is not working hard at getting yourself educated and then competing for your true value, which necessarily keeps you on your toes and moving forward it is, for the chosen and privileged few, getting assisted through schooling while your potential competitors are blocked and then sitting back on your laurels and collecting a fat paycheck for doing little while preaching to everyone else how good you are. Is this the “Enabling Meritocracy” that Indranee Raja is preaching about? And all this is conveniently putting aside the fact that every citizen has merit and is valuable, it just depends on whether you look at people as human or just as economic producing units with certificates or not. They may not all excel at the one and only metric the PAP seems to use to decide value (besides who you are related too of course) but they have much to offer in other areas and yet we pay little more than lip service to anything outside our rigid academic sorting system. While Singapore continues to be ruled one-dimensionally, to an often flawed economic plan, like a dysfunctional company and not a country that encourages and supports all its citizens to thrive and find their true potential then many of the deserving will be blocked, many undeserving will get a free ride at the public expense and our country will wither and die while losing its soul and becoming a cold empty husk of humanity. We need a total reform of our education system which includes providing access to higher education for all who wish to strive for it, plus we need to develop and support our local Small-Medium-Entreprises (SMEs), the arts and sports sectors and start valuing contributors from non-academic backgrounds just as much as our “academics”. For example, a patient will die if the cleaner doesn’t do his job right in a hospital and it’s not a pleasant job to do. There will be a variance between his and a doctor’s pay but should it be so great? And engineering graduates with practical skills earn as much as academic graduates with theoretical skills in Germany as another example. SO:- No more privileged access to limited higher education, No more scholarships for the rich, No more guaranteed jobs for the boys (family, scholars and generals) Valuing contribution to society more equitably, and Providing a real equal opportunity for all while supporting the less able. Then we can start talking about Meritocracy.     Brad Bowyer      Read More →