ASB Thought Leadership – Page 6 – Asia School of Business

Is it always a good thing for people in the organisation to be like a family?

“I don’t want us to be like family anymore at work. Rather, I want everyone to feel we are a professional football team.” Declared the newly appointed CEO of a large Asian conglomerate during their first Town Hall meeting. I was sitting in the room as an observing coach. The room went quiet. The organisation was a 100-year-old Chinese descendant company, whose traditions were rich with relationship and togetherness.

Yet, here was the leader of their pack, challenging that very notion. “The problem with being a family is that we are obligated to carry others. If you have a brother who fails to get his act together, or if you have a fellow worker who is not minding his responsibilities, you have to take care of him no matter what. Even if it means repeatedly covering for his absence and doing his work for him. Because he is family”

The room was now in total silence. More than a few heads were nodding involuntarily. “In a professional sports team, every function in the organization has its responsibility. The club manages sales, marketing, and other corporate affairs. The manager makes plans to draw out the team’s potential. And the players give their best to execute and deliver the results – to compete successfully with competition.”

“Let me make one thing clear today. Under my leadership, those who don’t fulfil their obligations will be leaving; much like players who are transferred out of the team at the end of season.” “We need to take care of business; not just each other.” He concluded crisply. While many people may think that the CEO’s message was rather stern and cold – and I don’t personally agree with his standing – he did raise an interesting point for further thoughts: Is being ‘a family’ always a good thing at work?

Dr. Laurie Kramer, a researcher at the University of Illinois, set up a campaign in 2008 called ‘More Fun with Sisters and Brothers’ to teach children how to make their life with siblings more fun and happy. For example, the program taught activities they could all enjoy together, how to resolve conflicts in a way that benefits everyone, techniques to control emotions and persuade others. Unsurprisingly, the course had parents with more than one child, like myself, queuing up in hope to enroll their kids.

Non-parents or parents of a single child may wonder why such intervention is even necessary. After all, siblings are naturally best friends to each other, aren’t they? Please excuse our collective laughter; as we know from personal experience that the logic of nature rarely works that way. Over the decade, my wife and I have lost counts how many occasions we suffered through the kids fighting each other. Sometimes we couldn’t help but wonder whether they might get along better with friends than they do their own brother/sister.

Dr. Kramer discussed an interesting hypothesis in her study – which was captured in the book titled Nurtureshock: Why Everything We Thought About Children is Wrong by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman (2009, Ebury Press). The reason siblings fight with each other more than with friends is because, deep down the kids know that family is a ‘given’. This means no matter how badly they treat each other, they will always be brother and sister. “This explains why siblings don’t have to worry about courtesy or self-control and can just go all out. An entirely different scenario from friends which pose a worry that they may be refused from association” said the American researcher.

Another research, this one by Dr. Ganie Dehart of State University of New York (SUNY), found that children play pranks on and fight with their siblings 7 times more than with friends! In July 2017, a Director was caught embezzling more than 1 million dollars from a not-for-profit organization. He used it to buy personal items like 6 cars, house loans, utilities, contractors, and even groceries.

Intriguing, however, was the fact that his secretary logged these expenses for over 5 years but never said a word. When she finally came forward she said, “He was like a family to us. Nobody thought he could do such a thing.” After looking at these studies, I couldn’t help but reminisce on what the CEO said that afternoon.

“I don’t want us working like family because with family, you have to carry each other unconditionally. However, business does not work that way. You have to pull your weight, or be left behind.”

We may not agree 100% with his thinking. But perhaps it renders a chance to reflect on ours?

Leadership Insights

Family may not be the final answer I often heard members spoke of their organizational culture as “We Are A family”. However, one couldn’t help but wonder whether an organization operating like a family completely works. Is it possible that sometimes ‘feeling at home’ may render your employee sloppy from proper conduct in society? Could it give them a false sense of security? After all, home is where you can just throw your used socks in the corner, leave your dishes in the sink, or even stay in your pajamas all day playing video games. Sometimes our house is the sanctum where one doesn’t have to be mindful of others. Do we really want our organization to be a place like that?
Mind the net balance of your family. Despite the research, many of us still feel that working amongst family is a great thing. “I grew up with my siblings and I think it’s great. We had fights and all, sure, but we still love each other.” But researchers point out that to feel that way we need to evaluate our family experience by its net balance. This means we need to take all the shared good moments such as going on trips, exchanging stories, or protecting each other from harm, then subtract from them the bad ones such as fights, unpaid debts, conflict of interests, or even backstabbing. If the ‘family net balance’ is still positive, then your experience as siblings would likely be a plus. But I’m sure we wouldn’t have to look far to find families whose net balance is a minus. Where is yours? And how can you shift it towards the positive?
Get to a win-win outcome. The key challenge for leaders is to get to an ‘And’ not an ‘Or’. To the CEO above, working like a sport team is good because it has clear measurements for output and even a penalty system that keeps employee from being lax. However, the downside is that his organization may become more focused on the forebrain of reason, without the emotional energy of the hindbrain. The team will go through the motions of delivering on its duties with the head but without the heart. What’s missing will be the companionship of a family; a sense of belonging; the spirit of All for One and One for All. How then, can you find a way to get the best of both worlds, making your employees work as a community with disciplines and codes of conduct in an environment that has love, generosity, and bonding akin to that of siblings? We may not yet know the path – but knowing the destination is already a good start.

So, is it always a good thing for people in the organization to feel like family? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

Dr Thun Thamrongnawasawat (Tan) is one of the foremost experts on dissecting complex management and business models and cascading them for easy implementation by companies across different industries. His innovative B.A.S.E. model has inspired numerous organizations to transform. He’s the author of the Brain-BASEd Leadership book series (2013-2016), a bestselling The Leadership Journey (2018) and a regular newspaper columnist. In 2015, Dr Thun was the recipient of World HRD Congress’s “Global Coaching Leadership Award” and named “Consultant of the Year” by the Ministry of Industry, Thailand.

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

A growing trend of the ‘Rich and Lost’ population in the Open Source era

Is it possible to be ‘rich’ and be ‘lost’? You bet it is!

Among the trends of the 21st Century is leaders who have become successful at an unprecedentedly young age: the so-called billionaire teenagers. The 2016 Forbes Billionaires List contained as many as 66 tycoons that were not even in their forties; a 7-times growth from 2010 and a new record. The youngest addition to the list was a Norwegian young lady who was only 19 at the time.

Although some did inherit their net worth from rich parents, but even people who became wealthy through their own sweat and blood like Even Spiegel of Snapchat was only 25. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook stepped into the hall of billionaires when he was a mere 32 years old. Indicators for business success in the new world are called Unicorn, Decacorn and Hectocorn: company valuation on the scales of 1 billion, 10 billion and 100 billion, respectively. Members of these groupings are the likes of Spotify, Evernote, Pinterest, Airbnb, and of course, Uber.

Since their launch in Malaysia in 2012, Grab – Uber’s regional competitor – services up to 2.5 million rides daily, making it the largest ride-hailing platform and the preferred app that most drivers and passengers use in Southeast Asia. Grab is in 55 cities across the region, and its app has been downloaded onto over 45 million devices (Source: www.grab.com, 2016).

With a fresh $2 billion recently raised in 2017, the company is valued close to six billion dollars. Even a fellow hailing start-up Go-Jek is reportedly valued at $3 billion, and it only operates in a single country, Indonesia. The world sees this kind of skyrocketing growth doubled during 2012 to 2015. So, it is not surprising that the respective business owners would have accumulated their piles of wealth at an early age. Anthony Tan was only 30 when he founded Grab.

So, what is life like for this growing group of young billionaires? In 2016, The Independent published an article titled “8 people who became millionaires by 25 describe what it’s like to be so rich, so suddenly, so young”. I’ve integrated the reflections into this piece’s food-for-thought.

Leadership Insights:

People treat them differently. As the success and wealth of young billionaires became known, bystanders made a beeline to ask how they too can become rich. They couldn’t even go to the gym without being begged for stock advice. In contrast, old friends became distanced; figuring a mere office worker using public bus was not worthy for someone with a personal chauffeur. Even their mother and father felt intimidated to impart wisdom the way normal parents do. Simply put, they could never be sure if the people approaching them were genuine. Or that they might have a hidden agenda to go after the money and success.
They treat themselves differently. Some may think that ‘rich kids’ purchase expensive things without a second thought. But what we didn’t realize was that they often caught themselves being unconsciously frugal. For example, they would pay $10,000 for a night of hotel but stayed away from the mini bar because ‘it felt expensive’. True, the first time flying Business Class was thrilling, but it soon became a default mode of going gate-to-gate. The real threat was a growing intolerance towards life in Economy. “It’s a dangerous slope because once you fall down, nothing is good enough and nothing is luxurious enough. It quickly became an endless hunt for higher and higher satisfaction”. Strange to a mere commoner like us, being too well-off can be depressing.
What to do with life? Success comes hand in hand with loneliness. What these young leaders face is a daily life designed for people ‘older’ than their age group. The average age of billionaires in the US is 60+ years old. How would a youth in their late 20s and early 30s feel in such a matured environment? Just the clothes they wear to a restaurant would already be too formal for their years. What about all the ‘serious’ conversations, all the time? With such accelerated lifestyles, these successful youngsters feel lost, “What am I supposed to do – retire for the next 60 years? I’ve been asking myself that question every day for more than two years.” said one of the interviewees.

My close friend, the Managing Director of an HR consulting firm, shares a growing problem she has been hearing from leaders in this digital age. Some of these thirty-something business owners are among the richest in the country, yet it seems the wealthier they got the more stressful their lives became – meetings with clients, finding nicer places for dinners, fighting with parents, shopping for brand name products, arguing with relationships, going on trips around the world, picking up meditation, partying wildly – only to come home feeling lost.

“You know, sometimes I can’t help but think that people our age work until retirement and still wonder what to do for the next 10-20 years. How about them? What do people who can ‘retire’ even before they turn thirty think of their remaining 60 years?” At the Iclif Leadership and Governance Centre, we coined the term Leadership Energy as the cornerstone of meaningful and positive change, and believe it is driven by an individual’s deeply-held values, clarity of purpose, and strength of mind.

It is crucial for leaders to constantly examine and review these elements of their inner self. Because the journey is not a linear path leading from a start to an end but rather a cycle that keeps looping upward. A combustion engine that burns only once is not particularly useful. A dam that can only generate one cycle of electricity isn’t going make much impact. Leaders who can’t propel themselves forward on a sustainable basis will not fare any better.

The summit that you conquered must become the base of your next climb, ascending to a higher cause. While it may have been triggered by them, these challenges are not exclusive to young billionaires. In the current era of modernization, most of us in organizations live a comfortable life without the need to fight for survival. We are, in a way, billionaires when it comes to basic necessities. This renders the brain lazy.

Leaders of all levels thus need to learn how to harness their energy in a sustainable manner. To continue asking ourselves what in the world makes us happy, sad, or angry – and how can we do something about it. Jack Ma, the pride of Asia, said it best:

“When you have 1 million dollars that’s your money. When you have 20 million, it starts to become a problem – What about inflation? Which stocks to buy? When you have $1 billion that’s not your money—that’s the trust of people in you. I never thought this money belongs to me. If I believed this money belongs to me, I will have problems…. This is the money I spend on behalf of our society.”

Is it possible to be ‘rich’ and be ‘lost’? Sure, it is. But it is also possible to be rich and be changing the world for a better future.

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

Yes, you read it right. The title of this piece is ‘Great to Good’. I’m going to talk about how, in the 21st Century, we need ‘Goodness’ more than ‘Greatness’ when it comes to innovation. Between 1996-2001, Jim Collins’ team researched and wrote a bestselling book called Good to Great. They described 11 out of 1,435 companies that had shown the highest level of success over the decades.

Most of them were organizations that ‘make and sell’ products (Abbott Laboratories, Kimberly-Clark, Philip Morris, and Gillette Company). Other books such as Built to Last (1994) by the same author and In Search of Excellence (1982) by Tom Peters made similar studies with concurring results.

However, the majority of these great 20th century companies failed to sustain their level of greatness in the Open-Source era. The management consultant giant McKinsey and Co. did a follow-on study that found 32 of the 50 companies described in these books to only matched or underperformed the market over their subsequent 15-to-20-year period. In fact, the ‘great’ Circuit City and Kodak both went bankrupt.

The question is “Why?”

If I asked you to name some innovations of the 20th Century, which ones would you think of? Well, many of you might already be thinking “Stop asking and just Google them, silly!” That is true; excuse me. So, I typed ‘Innovations of the 20th Century’, and the results I got are 1) Nuclear Power 2) Personal Computer 3) Airplane 4) Automobile 5) Antibiotics 6) Television, etc. We are familiar with all these inventions.

Here is another question: Do you know who these people are? And what they invented? In parentheses are their dates of birth. Charles Darwin (1859), Thomas Edison (1879), Albert Einstein (1921), Alexander Fleming (1928), Edwin Land (1948), Robert Metcalfe (1973), and Peter Dunn & Albert Wood (1998)? They were inventors of the 20th Century; many of which gave rise to the said products. Now, how about these?

Jack Ma (2000), Jeff Bezos (2003), Mark Zuckerberg (2004), Reed Hastings (2007), Brian Chesky (2008), Travis Kalanick (2009), Anthony Tan (2012). They were also inventors, but of the 21st Century. Obviously, all names listed are ‘innovators’ of their time. But the real question is, what is the difference between the first and second sets? The answer, to me, is how the meaning of innovation has changed.

We have spent over a century making and producing ‘things’. Never has the world experienced so much wealth, consumed so much resources, collected so much assets, and generated so much wastes. In fact, most of us own at least 4 of the 6 examples of Innovations of the 20th Century that I outlined above. Books such as Consumptionomics (2011) by Chandran Nair and Abundance:

The Future Is Better Than You Think (2012) by Peter H. Diamandis provides further evidence of this prosperity. By the way, in case you were wondering, Peter Dunn & Albert Wood (1998) are inventors of the performance-enhancing drug Viagra. Innovation in the 21st century, however, is about sharing – not producing. If I were to now Google Innovations of the 21st Century; here is what it would tell me about inventions that are impacting lives:

“The world’s largest taxi firm, Uber, owns no cars. The world’s most popular media company, Facebook, creates no content. The world’s most valuable retailer, Alibaba, carries no stock. And the world’s largest accommodation provider, Airbnb, owns no property. Something big is going on.” These businesses own virtually nothing they are providing to customers, yet they have created tremendous values and changes in the world. Unicorns, Decacorns and Hectocorns are the themes of the present era.

It is the age of making money out of nothing; what Hamish McRae @TheIndyBusiness dubbed ‘The rise of content non-generator’. As a matter of fact, businesses of the 21st Century are being invested based on their ‘value-ation’ rather than the traditional Return on Asset or Profit & Loss statements. Even Google does not own the search results that were returned. It merely drew them from existing data generated by millions of resources around the world.

The innovations in the 21st Century are different. Something big is indeed going on. The 20th Century was an era of geniuses; one needs not ponder for long to think of Albert Einstein (1879-1955), the inventor of the E = mc2 equation; the special theory of relativity; and a recipient to the Nobel Prize in photoelectric, which serves as the basis for Quantum Physics. Or, even before that, we had Thomas Edison (1847-1931) who was a prolific inventor, holding 1,093 US patents in his name.

These genious discoveries have since gave birth to products like nuclear power, lights, television, automobile, spacecraft etc. Such influence partly explains why most parents strive to raise their kids to be as smart as possible. The genius craze led to children books with titles like ‘Raising Genius’, the ‘Baby Genius’ DVDs, and movies such as ‘Goodwill Hunting’, starring Matt Damon as the improbable ‘genius’.

Notice that none of the innovators in my second list has a Nobel Prize. And I think it is unlikely that any of them will ever get one. Innovations of the 21st Century era do not rely on one to discover secret codes of the universe. Facebook basically lets people around the world share their diaries; Airbnb is a brokerage for vacant rooms; and Grab is a virtual concierge who goes out and get us a cab. There is no complex ingenuity at play here; only laymen who see questions that the world has been waiting for answers.

These start-ups simply integrate and utilize things that already exist to provide good answers. In the current era of resource abundance, one does not need to have an IQ of Einstein’s, or to dedicate a life of failing 10,000 times like Edison to concoct an invention. A good idea or two will suffice. 20th Century was about a few people finding GREAT discoveries. 21st Century is about all of us, using the breakneck speed connectivity that technology provides, to do GOOD things together for a better future. That is my meaning of Great to Good.

Leadership Insights

The New S Curve: Organizations in various countries that I am working with are all buzzing about disruptive innovation – how to build the new growth cycle? To begin cracking that code, one must understand that innovations of this era are unlike anything we have ever seen before. I would argue that even the iPads, iPhones, electric cars, or robotics are all innovations of the previous era; just with substantial improvement made by the evolution of technologies. On the other hand, innovations in the 21st Century are about connecting, linking, integrating, and creating a better future. They are not addressed by appointing an R&D team, integrated the best of tech, stretching product development to design new models and services, or even hire great talent. The crux of innovation in this very age is about taking what already exists and synergizing new values out of it. Only by shifting how your people think about innovation and by letting the cream rise to the top will you achieve such breakthrough leadership.
Criteria for Innovation in the 21st Century: Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers, authors of What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption (2010), described key components of these sharing innovations: 1) Critical Mass: reaching the target groups with massive number of people. This is the reason why Amazon.com, Alibaba, and Uber endured their years of profit loss in order to build their network. 2) Idling Capacity: noticing the existing resource that can be utilize. For examples, Air Asia allowing passengers to print their own boarding pass from home; banks letting customers carry out transactions via the internet; and Airbnb uncovering the unoccupied spaces in the community and unleashing them for rent. 3) Common Base: willingness to share interests, knowledge and capabilities between peers. This happens when we share our life stories on Facebook, relying on HappyFresh workers to buy our grocery for us, or report a crash on Waze to benefit other drivers. Lastly, 4) Trust Creation: the system for building peer groups. The Grab app entrusted us to getting on a stranger’s car because we are comforted by the ‘stars’ given, for example.
The Time is Now: This golden opportunity of the 21st Century is literally up for grab – pun intended. We are now living in an era where innovations are not limited to selective people with genius IQ. Thus, be diligent in your search for new knowledge; be brave in challenging the boundary of what you know; find a simple yet unresolved problem that has been making you sad or angry. Then, put on your leadership hat. Think about how this problem also affects other people like you? What might be a pent-up resource that can be released to address this challenge? Will the people be open to putting in their own efforts and spread the growth? Finally, identify what connectors must be made to build trust and pave way for that society of sharing.

Welcome to Great to Good innovation. Strive for ‘Goodness’ as opposed to ‘Greatness’. And let’s make our world a better place.

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

esort to shutting up and following orders, then you come across as lacking innovation and not thinking out-of-the-box. So, what to do? How do you work with such leadership behaviors? Especially with someone who has a position power and authority over you?

Even if your leader is well on their way to becoming a positive autocrat, you still must learn to navigate this new leadership style. Because in the current era where innovative workers are replacing knowledge ones, your survival may depend on it.

Here is my proposed solution. Or, at least something for you to think about.

Be autocratic. Many subordinates think that when you have a ‘bossy’ leader, the best choice is to shut up and follow orders. Gonzague Dufour, the author of the book Managing Your Manager: How to Get Ahead with Any Type of Boss (2011, McGraw-Hill), says that “this is a huge mistake”. Based on my own conversations with executives, autocratic leaders told me they prefer people who ‘challenge them’ instead of those who simply comply. A colleague of mine retells a story he heard at Tesla of the CEO Elon Musk ejecting people who were not contributing from the meeting room. So, the first step towards paving your way with an autocratic-style leader is to convince yourself to speak up, not shut up.

Earn the right to be listened to. But there is a reason why you wanted to shut up in the first place, right? Because you still remember what it felt like the last time you said something to your boss. You nearly got your head bit off – at least it felt that way. My advice is to examine whether you have earned your right to be listened to. The brain is not always fact-based. When, how, and who says things often means as much as what is said. For instance, if this is your first year at the firm, a radical idea on client strategy may not be welcomed with open arms. Or, if you failed utterly to deliver on the previous promise, your proposal to start a new project probably will run into much skepticism. Work your way up the ladder. My friend who works at Apple told me about their culture: before you can make a Category 3 suggestion, you need to have proven your worthiness at Category 1 and 2.

Build your psychological security. Laura Delizonna wrote in Harvard Business Review about a concept called Psychological Safety (August 24, 2017). It is the common factor identified amongst the highest-performing teams. Psychological Safety is the belief that you won’t be punished when you make a mistake. Personally, I am not keen on the term. I just think the word ‘safety’ is opposite to ‘risk-taking’ that is key to speaking your thoughts. Instead, I’m choosing to think of the concept as psychological security. But the linguistic nit-picking aside, I agree that for you to stand up for your idea, you must have a degree of confidence in the worst-case scenario. Ask yourself “What is the worst that can happen by speaking up?”. You will be surprised to find that the worst is not as bad as you think, once you have the courage to confront it.

Know the trigger. Working with autocratic leaders you must know where NOT to challenge. Positive autocrats are taught to be adamant on their values and purpose. Thus, to work for one you must be mindful of what those are – otherwise, you will learn it the hard way. For instance, I work with a boss who values hard work and earned respect. Once, I made the mistake of overstepping my boundary along those lines; I needed my colleagues to shovel me out of the ground! While it may seem that everything sets off your leader, I challenge you to pause and observe your experiences. You will find that only certain things actually trigger her. And if you dig a little deeper, your leader’s values and purpose lie beneath. Familiarize yourself with what they are, and you can minimize the chance of having your psychological security zone busted.

Lose the battles but win the war. You will not win many arguments with an autocratic leader, even a positive one. In fact, you will lose most of them. The important thing is to know which are your battles and which are your wars. Battles are not important; the wars are – it isn’t a zero-sum game. Many subordinates fail to work effectively with an autocratic leader because they have unrealistic, and frankly unproductive, expectations to win on all points. For example, if your objective is to present your idea to the CEO, then having him agree to the idea is just a battle. Having your idea heard is the war. Be happy that you got an uninterrupted 15-minutes to showcase your thought; and stop blaming your boss for not having the foresight to see the point. You won your war today. Live to fight the next battle.

Value alignment. For a team to function well in the 21st Century it comes down to this: People work well together when their values are aligned – or at least overlapped. The Open Source Leadership research shows that professionals today are more intrinsically driven than extrinsic. That means people work for their own reasons not others’. And, since the brain likes to align its BASE: Belief, Action, Social, and Environment, we gravitate towards those who share our values. For example, if I believe in helping people become a better version of themselves and my boss has a similar belief, then we will find common ground despite our different ideas and approaches. On the other hand, if he believes in winning at all costs irrespective of others, then it doesn’t matter whether he is a positive autocrat or not. Our values simply do not match.

So, before you say your relationship with your boss is a lost cause, examine closely the real reason why you are not working well with him. Is it simply techniques and skills? Or is it an intrinsic misalignment of values? Because it’s too convenient to simply blame it on him being an autocrat!

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

Focus on The Cream Not The Cone (FoCre) means to forgo the conventional model of Talent Acquiring and move towards Idea Harvesting when it comes to innovation. We have tried the former for decades with continued challenges, as reviewed later in this piece. FoCre requires, however, an organizational paradigm shift from ‘focus on people’ to ‘focus on ideas’.

It is about organizations coming to terms with the fact that, in the Open Source era, the most optimal investment is to seek smart creative ideas from anywhere, i.e. the cream, as opposed to bet on smart creative employees, i.e. the cone. In fact, we already observed pioneer organizations trying variants of this approach to address the ongoing challenges for creativity and innovation.

When it comes to innovation in the 21st Century, successful organizations are not unlike a child who focuses on picking at the ice cream rather than on the cone holding it. The book Open Source Leadership: Reinventing Management When There Is No More Business as Usual (Rajeev Peshawaria, McGraw-Hill, 2017) highlighted a crowdsourcing story that demonstrated the FoCre shift.

In 2013, an Indonesian engineer in far flung Central Java won the USD20,000 prize for a global innovation challenge. However, GE Aviation did not hire the contest winner; they only bought the idea (for more details please see Crowdsourcing Your Way to Breakthrough Success. This is an example of focusing on the cream not the cone. A. G. Lafley of Procter & Gamble also did something similar between 2000-2006, by mandating that 50% of the company’s innovations were to come from outside the company, i.e. non-employees. Start-up successes of the 21st Century like Facebook, Airbnb, Uber and Grab all employ a similar model that captures values regardless of the people who own them.

To explore further, I reviewed key insights from the 2014-2018 GE Innovation Barometer Reports, WEF, Davos. The GE IB reports are known to be the most comprehensive and dedicated global study on innovation, having started since 2010 with input from thousands of executives across 20+ countries.

The Outlook of Innovation

Developing countries are the most excited about innovation. Top of the list in 2016’s GE Innovation Barometer Report in ‘Optimism for Innovation’ is Indonesia at 88% Strongly Agree. This ties with Israel and follows by Nigeria (86%), and Algeria (84%). Other Asian countries like China and Malaysia follow at 81% and 76%, respectively. In fact, Asia and emerging markets show an increase of 34+ points in optimism since 2014.

The incumbent developed nations do not show up until Australia (66%,) USA (63%), Sweden (60%), and France (59%) with their optimism about innovation. However, while developing countries are more optimistic and excited about the future of innovation, they lag on making it happen. In the 2018 data for ‘Most Conducive Environment for Innovation’, the Top 10 are all developed countries USA (76%), Japan (73%), Germany (65%), UK (53%), and Canada (49%).

Indonesia doesn’t show up until 26th position at 19%. Malaysia doesn’t fare much better at 22nd with 23% of the vote. The most challenging gap is between the need for innovation and the ability to come up with them. Executives across the 24 nations agree that innovation is critical to their survival, e.g. Digital Darwinism, (Agreement of Top-10 nations average 87%). However, they are significantly less certain on their ability to innovate (Top-10 average 65%).

Finding Creative People Continues to be the Roadblock

Talented employees have been considered the most crucial element to innovation success in most markets. What’s interesting, however, is that the skill gaps continue to widen despite this awareness. According to the latest GE IB 2018 report nearly 3 in 4 (74%) global executives believe a lack of skills is an issue facing their innovative efforts—a challenge that has increased over time, up from 56% in 2014.

For example, according to the survey, the ‘Most Valuable’ skill for Malaysia when it comes to innovation is creativity. And this developing nation is not unique. Most of the countries, 13 out of 21 in the study, reported Creativity as the Top-Two most valuable skill for future workers. In fact, 9 of 21 said it is the most important skill when it comes to value creation.

Creativity is also the ‘Hardest’ skill to find. As you can see in the blue bar above for Malaysia, it is the highest-ranked trait when it comes to difficultly finding employees. The landscape snapshot is similarly grim for the other countries. The majority, 15 out of 21 surveyed, reported Creativity amongst the Top-Two hardest skills to find. And congruently, 11 out of 21 reported it being the most challenging aspect of talent sourcing for the 21st Century.

Loyalty and Interpersonal Skills: The Nemesis of Innovation?

The problem with betting on people leading you to innovation is even if the organization can find, recruit, and employ creative talents, there is no guarantee that you will keep them. This risk is compounded considering the other top HR challenges uncovered in the reports are loyalty—employees who stay— and interpersonal skills – employees who make others stay.

Omitting creativity, the other two traits that rank highly on ‘Most Valuable’ and ‘Hardest to Find’ are loyalty and interpersonal skills. Either one of them ranks in the Top-Two most valuable skills for 10 of the 21 countries. Six nations rated at least one of them as the most valuable skill for their prosperity. Japan, Australia, and South Korea casted their vote for interpersonal skills while Algeria’s, Malaysia’s, and Mexico’s top votes going to commitment to the company.

The same pattern follows when it comes to difficulty finding people with the two traits. Either loyalty or interpersonal skills rank in the Top-Two for 13 of the 21 countries for ‘Hardest to Find’. Seven nations rated at least one of them as the most difficult skill to acquire in the workforce. Brazil, China, Germany, India, and Mexico opined that commitment to the company is the hardest thing to find while Indonesia thinks it is the interpersonal skills. In fact, Australia ranked both interpersonal skills and loyalty the #1 and #2 most difficult skill to find, respectively.

Shift from people focus to idea focus.

What does all the above point to as far as the innovation outlook for the 21st Century is concerned?

Organizations need and want to become more innovative despite persisting challenges
Creative people are the rarest hires but also where the most valuation lies
Loyalty and interpersonal skills may contribute to the difficulty of finding, and retaining, creative people
Options are 1) keep doing the same and hoping for different results or 2) change the approach to finding innovation.

So, what is the most important thing to do when it comes to innovation? Be innovative in your approach. If pursuing and vesting in creative hires has not gotten you as far as you would like, then shift your thinking from ‘people focus’ to ‘idea focus’. Chances are, in the Open Source era, great ideas already exist somewhere, whether within or outside your organization. So, worry less about owning the people and more about obtaining their ideas. Put your efforts on how to get those out and put them to use – Practice Focusing on The Cream Not The Cone.

How can you start FoCre at your organization today?

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

What happened the last time you had a crazy idea? Who did you talk to? What did they say? Here are some possible responses depending on who you chose to share with.

You: “I have a crazy idea”
Team: “Why don’t YOU do it?”
Boss: “What is your implementation plan?”
Mentor: “Don’t repeat my mistakes.”
Coach: “How much have you been thinking about this?”

In my experience and research on innovation, I have come to realize that there is a missing link in making innovation happen. Organizations don’t capture innovation not because they lack creativity – people have crazy ideas all the time. They fail to capture innovation because there is no effective way for the ideas to be shared and grown. Most seeds of innovation died before they even had a chance to sprout.

As an example of a company that has figured out how to tap into the innovative potential of its people, there is a 900-employee Brazilian canmaker called Brasilata. It has been consistently voted one of the top innovative workplaces. Chip and Dan Heath, authors of Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, wrote about the amazing number of ideas that the company comes up with year after year. For example, in 2008, Brasilata employees submitted 134,846 ideas—an average of 145.2 ideas per person. By 2015, that number grew to more than 200,000!

So, how can you get started? Get yourself, and your employees, a think buddy.

From supporting people to supporting ideas

In the 20th Century, HR practices evolved many supporting systems for employees to excel. We invented the concept of Management to help delegate work and maximize on-the-job learning. Then, we realized that employment is a career not just a job, and so was born the practice of Mentorship to help people navigate the journey. During more recent decades we’ve witnessed the growth of Coaching to foster self-discovery and development, as human capital development moved from treating everyone as generic employees to unique individuals.

The hallmark of the 21st Century, a.k.a. the open source era, is the spurt of connectivity-enabled creativity and innovation. Thanks to this 24/7 connectivity, ordinary people have never been more empowered with opportunities and possibilities to innovate. The next great idea may be waiting to be churned right there on your office floor. As such, organizations will need another supporting system to help not with people development, but the growth and strengthening of their sprouting ideas.

Therefore, I am proposing an additional service for employees in the open source era: one called the Think buddy.

Fundamentally, all four supporting systems have different foci. Managers focus on the outcome of the work so that you become better at achieving goals. This is why “What is your implementation plan?” is the likely response from a boss when approached with a crazy idea. Mentors, on the other hand, focus on sharing wisdom and experiences so you don’t “repeat my mistakes”. Finally, the coaches’ role is to help you grow, so their focus is on you not your problem. One of the first questions I learned during my coaching training was to ask the coachee “how often have you been thinking about this problem?”.

A Think buddy is someone to help ideas grow

What about these think buddies? Where do they focus? Simple, they focus on the ideas. Not the tasks, not the jobs, not one’s career, not even on the person in front of them – these cognitive companions are only interested in talking about the ideas and the possibilities.

You: “I have a crazy idea”
Buddy: “Great. I love crazy ideas. Let’s hear it.”

While it might seem simple, establishing this idea-supporting system is harder than it sounds. Like being a skilled manager, mentor, or coach, learning to become an effective think buddy is a field of practice with its own principles, fundamentals, and skillsets.

For example, as a coach you are taught to always focus on the coachee; what to listen for and which questions to ask. The overall process of the conversation evolves around helping the person to discover themselves. Particularly, you are not to provide answers or get absorbed into the issues at hand. Your job is to make them think not to worry about the thought itself. If you want to become a certified coach, then you need to demonstrate an understanding and the ability to practice these traits.

On the other hand, as a think buddy, you must train your brain to focus exclusively on the ideas. How do you make them grow? How to check for possibilities? How to switch perspectives? How to validate and re-validate the assumptions? What about the desired outcome? Or even when to stop the thinking, etc. More importantly, you must also learn to separate the person from the ideas; to not let human biases distract the growth. And the list goes on. Through the lens of neuroscience, wearing the hat of a think buddy requires a completely new type of wiring for your brain. The good news is, with practice and mindful attention, you CAN re-wire your brain.

And, like its other three supporting siblings, the effectiveness of think buddies can be measured. For examples, 1) How often do conversations with think buddies happen? 2) After the session does the thinker feel that their ideas were multiplied as opposed to diminished? 3) Do they feel personally threatened at any point in the exchange? 4) How much have the ideas moved forward towards plausibility? And 5) How likely are the employees to come back to the buddy when their next crazy ideas hit them?

What must organizations do to foster and maximize their capture rate of innovation?

Your employees need someone to help with their thinking, i.e. a think buddy

Unfortunately, my empirical research found that people in most organizations do not readily have access to such support system. Many have difficulties just naming who they go to when they have ideas. Some said they have tried sharing with their boss, their mentor, and even their coach, but none of those helped. “The ideas kind of died in the conversation”, one told me. Sadly, your employees will eventually stop acknowledging these creative thoughts altogether, and along with it the organization’s prospect for innovation.

How do you know whether these think buddies exist in your organization? Well to start, let your employees answer these yes/no questions.

I have a person at work whom I immediately access to share my crazy ideas, yes or no?
Working in this organization, my ideas often grow and expand into experiments, yes or no?
I feel excited every day to think of something new, yes or no?

If their answers are towards ‘Nos’, then I suggest you start exploring now to set up the think buddies!

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

I was recently interviewed by StarBiz about Iclif’s new programme offering called ‘Innovating Inside-Out’. The well-written piece by Zunaira Saieed was published in The Star on 4th April 2019.

A brief background on Innovating Inside-Out:

Along with appreciating how innovation has changed in the 21st Century, the Innovating Inside-Out program aims to challenge the top-down and outside-in organizational approaches to innovation. We ignite and grow the inner innovator DNA of employees from within. Participants will be liberated by the ease of innovating and will adopt the mindset of learning, shaping ideas, and experimentation.

It’s a session that will change how your people view the word innovator; and how the organization can start to tackle innovation from inside-out! At the end of the day, participants will:

Appreciate how easy innovation really is in the Open Source era
Spark their innovator DNA to create positive changes in the organization
Learn key innovation techniques such as Empathy Lens© and Lateral Design©
Develop skills to become a Think Buddy© and help others to innovate

Question 1: What are the benefits of going for this Innovating-Inside Out workshop for corporate companies?

The key benefits are 1) employees will realize that innovation is easier than they think; and that they too can be an innovator; 2) start to practice the skills of a Think Buddy so that you can help others perpetuate innovation; and 3) flip the stigma of the word innovation and unlock the innovative mindset for a better future. The more people joining this movement in an organization, the sooner we all move towards an innovative culture.

Question 2: How can we measure the success of the workshop for the companies?

The practice of Think Buddy begins and a behavioral shift towards people loving to talk about ideas and are not afraid to experiment.

Question 3: Have you noticed if the productivity of the company increases through the workshop you are setting up? What do the numbers really look like”?

I know first-hand that a number of participants from previous Innovating Inside-Out runs have put into place the Think Buddy practice as well as tried and tested innovative ideas in their respective organizations. I sat in a car with a participant whose mindset about innovation was completely flipped from negative to positive. Realistically, for the impact of a training program, I think the word I would use is ‘proactive’ towards innovation, which will ultimately lead to productivity.

Question 4: How have the responses been from the companies attending the workshops?

Let me quote the participants to answer this question; “This program has opened my mind about innovation. Anything can be considered as an innovation as long as it gives value regardless they are small or big changes. Innovation is driven by us and we must be open to accept ideas to begin with. Bravo. Till we meet again. Thank you.” – “Innovative! Unlike mainstream courses which often are too theoretical. Enjoyed it!” – “Fantastic experience with new understanding on innovation. Will definitely apply the concept of think buddy by looking at empathy and compassion as an idea booster. Thank you to Dr Thun and the team”.

The quantitative score on the Overall Value of this workshop was 98%.

Question 5: As innovation evolved in the 21st century, how can companies change their DNA? Please elaborate.

Companies must realize that, while innovation can and has come from a small group of masterminds, be it the R&D department, a merger, or even a Start-Up accelerator, the fact remains that to succeed sustainably in the 21st Century you must get your employees on board. And there is no better way to get people to befriend innovation than to make them see that innovation itself is friendly.

Innovating Inside-Out isn’t a training course per se, but an invitation to join a movement. We are living now in the world when innovation is no longer out of reach for ordinary people. Digital and technology do not replace humans. Rather they enable us to tackle things that were impossible to tackle before. You don’t have to be a genius or even a tech-savvy. All you need is an open mind and a pure heart.

For companies to change their DNA, the organization must empathize with their employees about the real challenges they face when tasked to innovate. Innovating Inside-Out supports people that they too can become innovators. It targets the 80% who are not yet innovators.

Question 6: Please tell us in detail about the Empathy Lens© technique, Lateral Design© and Think Buddy©? How can these techniques benefit companies?

The job of a Think Buddy is to help an idea grow. The other two are a couple of the key skills that a Think Buddy must be well-versed. Empathy helps you to see the world through someone else’s Lens – then you Design around the current limitations by exploring the possibilities Laterally. These two techniques sit behind all innovations we see in the 21st Century. And they too can lead to amazing ideas for organizations to explore.

Question 7: How important is it for corporates to innovate?

According to our study, 93% of corporate representatives say innovation is either Important or Very Important – with the majority voicing for the latter. What’s interesting is only 17% say that their people are innovative. Hence the need for a program like this.

Question 8: How many participants would you expect for a workshop?

Ideally, we’d like to stay below 30 for a workshop. But given that it is the beginning of a movement for Innovating Inside-Out, we welcome anyone interested to jump on board through executive sharing, breakfast talks, conferences, etc.

Question 9: Are these techniques to learn for all corporates or for companies in certain sectors only? And why?

There is no sector limitation. In the 21st Century, the ability to innovate will become a core skill – if it isn’t already is – like Microsoft PowerPoint that all employees know how to use.

Question 10: How important is it for traditional companies in Malaysia to innovate?

Especially important – and I’d say for any Asian/ASEAN countries for that matter. Most organizations in this region fall into two categories 1) national companies looking to grow beyond their borders or 2) labor-intensive operations that are no longer cost-competitive. Whichever it is, the way out is to innovate their way to a new iceberg – to borrow Dr John Kotter’s term.

Question 11: In Malaysia, how do you see our corporate sector innovating? How many percents is actually innovating?

I think I inadvertently answered this earlier in Question 7 – which is not much. But regardless of the percentage, we all can use more innovators. A recent survey in Asia-Pacific region by Ideaspies.com shows that 91% of employees believe they are the best source of innovation. So, I would assume the potential is there as well for us.

Question 12: Are we innovating fast compared to other South East Asian countries? Or are we lagging behind?

I would look at this as a collective challenge rather than at individual countries. Fact of the matter is, ASEAN will prosper together, or we will stagnate together. Besides, the core principle of Innovating Inside-Out is not about finding secrets that will allow you to edge ahead of others. It is about a collective movement of people innovating to make all our lives a little bit better. The hallmark of 21st Century innovation is more about doing good than being great – and you will see that throughout the program.

Question 13: What are the challenges you see in Malaysia for the corporate sector to be innovative?

The key challenge is to make being an innovator accessible to the employees. Currently, innovation is viewed as an exclusive skillset only for a small number of experts/top management. In the Open Source era, innovation is becoming more of a common capability rather than a job function. Companies that are successful in harnessing this inside-out approach will be even more successful when it comes to raising / implementing innovative ideas.

Question 14: Or the government needs to do? Your advice?

I think many corporates in Malaysia, like ones in other countries across Asia/ASEAN, are already putting a strong focus on innovation. The key is to keep a balance on innovating outside-in, top-down, and inside-out.

Question 15: How about what the government needs to do? Your advice?

If anything, government or GLCs are particularly suited for Innovating Inside-Out; since they have a large number of employees, hence a greater pool for ideas.

Question 16: Any targets for the Malaysian corporate market that you want to achieve?

Truthfully there is no specific market. Innovating Inside-Out is more of a movement than a training course. The goal is to invoke the innovator DNA that is within everyone – for people to realize that we now live in an era when the impossible become possible. Having said that, the immediate markets that will be impacted by automation/AI/data processing/robotics, of course, face the most eminent urgency to transform.

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

“Dr Tan, I’m really fascinated by the Freedom Within A Framework idea.” Olivia, a manager who recently attended our Iclif program shared with me. We were having a follow-up reflection conversation.

“But the problem is, I don’t know how to put it into practice.” She continued: “I manage 15 people. I can’t just give everyone freedom to roam – the risk is just too high.”

“Would you like me to show you something to see if it helps?” I asked. The manager nodded enthusiastically. I gave Olivia one yellow Post-It note and asked her to think of a subordinate from her team. I then asked her to write down her best guess of the person’s Values & Purpose. The concept of Leadership Energy was discussed at length during the program she attended, so Olivia knew exactly what I meant.

It took her about 10 minutes to come up with 1) Harmony 2) Integrity 3) Security 4) Family and 5) Accuracy, as the Values. For Purpose, she wrote, ‘To be a good father and a responsible worker’.

On another piece of Post-It note – a blue one – I asked Olivia to think of the Values and Purpose she would like to see in her team. This time she quickly wrote 1) Integrity 2) Results 3) Excellence 4) Customer-Centric and 5) Teamwork. Her team’s purpose was ‘To become the number one branch in the region’.

“Good. Now, please overlay the two pieces of the notes,” I told her. “You can decide how much they overlap – ranging from a small area to a complete coverage.” Olivia looked at the information on the two notes. She decided they were about 40% overlapped; particularly around Integrity and Harmony/Teamwork. “Last question, what is the degree of freedom have you been giving him?” She thought about it for a minute then said probably about an 8 out of 10.

“I’m not a micromanager. I like to give my people freedom,” Olivia smiled sheepishly. I drew a diagram like the picture below in front of her. One axis is labeled Alignment of Values/Purpose and the other is labeled Freedom. I explained briefly what each zone means in the context of Freedom Within A Framework.

We placed on the chart the coordinate this manager has assigned her subordinate: 4 for alignment of Values and Purpose and 8 for Freedom. “And there is your problem,” I told her. “You have been giving him too much freedom.” The coordinate placed us in Zone 4: Too much Freedom. This zone describes a mismatch between Low Alignment of V&P and High degree of Freedom.

In laymen’s terms, this means the person has not earned the right to be completely trusted by his manager. In Olivia’s case, this is because the subordinate has not shown – at least to the boss’s eyes— his sharing of the team’s Values for Results, Excellence, and Customer-Centric.

If given a lot of freedom, he could make decisions that violate the team’s Values. For example, he could choose to attend his daughter’s recital and not submitting his work on time. “So, I can’t give him the freedom?” She frowned. “Well, no and yes.” I smiled and shared with her the following points.

Alignment of V&P is proportional to Freedom. The more your people show that they will act according to your team’s Values and Purpose, the more you can trust them to do the right thing. Mary Barra, the current CEO of General Motors, said this amidst her difficult decision to recall over 1-million GM cars due to manufacturing defects: “We quickly defined our guiding principles based on our values…

If the company sees you do the right thing, and your people know you are going to do the right thing even when it’s hard. That, to me, is so important for me to trust that we are doing the right thing at all levels, every day.” (Power Moves: Lessons from Davos (2018) by Adam Grant) Therefore, as a leader, you should aim to maximize your team members alignment of V&P. Achieving this starts with 1) to define clearly and communicate what your team’s V&P are; and 2) to observe and understand each of your team members’ V&P.

In Olivia’s case, her team member needs to learn that while it is okay to value Family, he must also respect the other important values of the team, e.g. Results and Customer-Centric, as well. This means that even if he chose to attend a family event, he must also deliver work on time and excellently. Olivia may need to have a conversation and move him to Zone 2, i.e. lower freedom, until she sees the behavioral alignment.

Give freedom to those who have earned it. Shape those who haven’t. Interestingly, many managers I have interacted with say that they have a great team; with members clearly aligned with the team’s V&P. In fact, ‘Alignment to Organisation Culture’ had the highest score in one of Iclif’s 360-degree Leadership Readiness Surveys of a 30,000-employee organization. Yet, these team members are managed with a lot of rules and policies, i.e. no freedom. The combination of a high degree of alignment but a low degree of freedom is described in Zone 5: Not enough freedom, which leads to unnecessary delays, frustrations, and distrust.

In Iclif’s most recent book, Open Source Leadership (2017), the author Rajeev Peshawaria highlights the fact that in today’s business environment, speed is everything and the ability to remain agile and nimble in an ever-changing landscape is critical. Unfortunately, many of today’s organizations still operate as if it were 1990 by not trusting their employees and imposing strict internal rules, policies, processes, and procedures. The result is a bureaucracy which is anything but agile and nimble. Organizations and leaders should relook at how they are managing their people by Freedom Within A Framework and adapt their approach, especially if they have earned it.

Be careful not to give Freedom simply based on performance. V&P alignment and performance may not necessarily go together. Don’t make the mistake that some managers do by simply giving employee freedom based on performance. This may breed a toxic culture because there is a right and wrong way of delivering results. Instead, the organization should always act in accordance with their Values & Purpose, even if it means reprimanding their top business performers.

In his book The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t (2007), a Stanford University professor Robert I. Sutton wrote about a case at a company called The Men’s Warehouse. It fired a selfish and difficult employee even though he was one of the company’s most successful salespeople, and as a result, the total sale volume in the store increased. Another example cited was a fortune 500 company where the CEO fired people who acted against the organizational Values. According to Sutton, the firm benefited from firing these Zone 6: Separation employees and had risen to become one of the top firms in the industry.

What may be counterintuitive is that even those who may be perceived as a ‘low performer’ can also be given freedom if they had proven themselves to act in alignment with the team’s Values & Purpose. In another chapter of Open Source Leadership (2017), Rajeev shares a view that to give everyone in the organization a ‘stretch’ goal is unproductive. The manager should instead have an honest conversation about expectations.

For example, the employees should be allowed to choose the lower end of the bell curve if they agree that a lower performance is fairly linked to lower remuneration. This is a perfect example of Managing by Freedom Within A Framework – the parties are aligned on their values & purpose, leading to working with a high degree of freedom, i.e. Zone 3.

“Wow, thank you Dr Tan. This is very helpful!” Olivia exclaimed. “The chart really helps me to see the relationship between Values & Purpose and Freedom. I can already begin to see where some of my people sit in the different zones, and how I should support them to move towards earned Freedom.”

Here’s a recap of what Olivia and I did together:

Think of 1 member in your team, e.g. reportee, colleague, or even boss
Decode her/his Values & Purpose; write them down on a Post-It note
Pick another Post-It note, write down the team’s/organization’s Values & Purpose
Decide how much the two notes overlap – place them accordingly
Assign the current degree of Freedom and map onto the chart
Examine the corresponding Managing by Freedom Within A Framework Zone
Think about how you can improve / optimize the current situation
Have a discussion with the person to manage the current status while developing the relationship towards Zone 3

What do you think?

Try Managing by Freedom Within A Framework with your team and do let us know how it works out!

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

The 21st Century is an era of the brain.

One of the Nobel Prizes given in 2014 was to a group of three scientists—Dr. John O’Keefe, Dr. May-Britt Moser, and Dr. Edvard I. Moser— for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain. As someone who is fascinated by the brain and leadership, I am always excited about the progress made to understand this amazing organ.

The news also brought back a story of the Prize’s founder, Alfred Nobel. A man who earned his wealth from inventing and manufacturing dynamite, an explosive made of nitroglycerin, which he patented in 1867. In 1888, Alfred’s brother, Ludvig Nobel, passed away. However, word got out that it was Alfred who died. Numerous articles were written to recount his biography instead of his brother’s.

Unsurprisingly, people’s perception of Alfred was extremely negative. He was portrayed as a cruel man, the ‘merchant of death’ – written a French newspaper. One piece even stated that “Alfred garnered his wealth from inventing a tool that rips away people’s lives.” and that the world has become a better place with him gone. The living Nobel, given a unique opportunity to read how he would have been remembered, was devastated. Alfred then resolved to change his legacy to the world.

During one of my coaching sessions, a telecom executive said “I don’t really need anything else in my life. I’ve made it quite far. My kids are all grown up. I only have a couple of years left before retirement. I don’t want to do anything more… It’s tiring.”She said lethargically. “How would you want people to think of you when you’re no longer here?” I asked her.

She took a long pause before replying “I would want them to remember the good things I’ve done. How I had made a difference.” We spent the rest of our sessions on planning what needed to be done to accomplish that goal. Actions were identified to maximize the probability of later generations ‘remembering’ her the way she wanted.

I do not often write about my dad. But this introspection brought back memories of him. When I was 6 years old, my father was appointed the top position for a government official – Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. He was also the youngest one ever at the age of 49. When teased that he seemed ‘rather humdrum’ about the promotion – perhaps because he had prior served as Deputy Minister, a perceived superior position— my father replied.

“I do not think, that a man’s worth is measured by his position. Being a Minister does not mean more honor and respect than any other occupation. There may have been a time that I, coincidentally, served as a Deputy Minister. but never in my mind have I thought of Permanent Secretary as inferior to Deputy Minister. The only important question is how much people remember our good deeds when we’re gone. If you were a Minister but you left people full of curses, where is the honor in that?”

Dr. Thalerng Thamrongnawasawat
Thairath News
20th Jan 1980

Despite our father having been a high-ranking official for several years, our family was never surrounded by wealth. What I and my siblings do take great pride in, however, are the values and purpose our father had left for us. My little sister, now a Chief Marketing Officer at a public company in Thailand, once turned down a high-profile customer because “the executive wanted USD 5,000 as a ‘liaison’ fee”. She then gave a reason that made me so proud of her “I’m his daughter. Dad’s children do not do that.”

Insights for Leaders:

If you aspire to be a great leader, then you need a great purpose. A great purpose does not necessarily mean grand achievements. A great purpose is something that is ‘greater than yourself’. When you lead people with reason, you get only a fraction of their forebrain energy. If you merely entice your people with monetary rewards, then they will leave you the moment someone else offers more.

But when you lead people with great values and purpose, you will unleash their infinite potentials of the hindbrain. You will get their pride, dedication, devotion, and love. This energy is boundless because it bears no reasons. If you are unclear, my advice is to pause and ask yourself “How do I want to be remembered?”

Alfred Nobel decided to dedicate all his wealth into establishing the Nobel Prize. Annual recipients are scientists who have made ‘Outstanding contributions for humanity’. Winners receive research funding of approximately 1 million US dollars – a process that has been ongoing for 116 years. If we were to walk up to a stranger on the streets and ask him who Alfred Nobel was, chances are the answer is a great philanthropist behind the Nobel Prize.

Very few, if any, would remember Alfred as the creator of a lethal weapon. Nobel changed his will in 1895. He died in 1896. Some people… came from the light and left into the light. Others… came from the dark and went back to the dark. Sadly… many came from the light but chose to leave in the dark. People who inspire… came from the dark but rose away to the light. A Buddhist Proverb

How do YOU want to be remembered?

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

“Another one!” A man in clothes mottled with stains yelled above the congregation. His hand clutched a wrinkled bill as if his life depended on it.

“One for us too. Please! …” A gaunt lady fought to keep their place in line. Clung tight to her legs was an undersized boy with a baby strapped on his back. The tiny child cried loudly in hunger. The chef, face glistened with beads of sweat, was doing his best to maintain the rapid flow of noodles going into the pot. He appeased his customers “Only one bowl per person! Please back away when you get yours.” “Omachi kudasai” (お待ちください) Please wait a moment.

That was the defining moment for Momofuku Ando – a Taiwanese-born Japanese. His leadership energy was primed. Back in the 1950s when Japan was rebuilding from its defeat after World War II, Momofuku was a middle-aged man deep in bankruptcy after a series of unsuccessful businesses. The scene in that small alley prompted Momofuku to think: There must be a better way to cook noodles than just bowl-by-bowl.

“I need to find a way that allows everyone to cook their own noodles and not be starved in line.” His purpose was born. “Ouch… Not again.” Momofuku’s wife yanked her hands away from the splashing oil. She was cooking yasai tempura, battered fried vegetables, for dinner. Chasing after his goal, Momofuku had been stuck for months tackling a problem: The short ‘shelf life’ of his dried noodles invention.

Traditional Japanese noodles – Ramen – were made fresh with boiling soup. This customary water-based process meant that noodles couldn’t be stored for an extended period. This perishable nature was a huge roadblock for Momofuku. Until he saw his wife cooking that day. “That’s it!” Momofuku proclaimed ecstatically. “We fry the noodles for storage and let them soften back in the water when we want to eat!”

He could barely contain his excitement. Just like that, the era of ‘Instant Noodles’ began. His first creation, ‘Chikin (Chicken) Ramen’, became available on the 25th of August, 1958. Momofuku would eventually achieve tremendous success in Japan with expansion after expansion of his business. However, his dream of ‘putting noodles on every table’ did not end there. “This is a stupid idea.

I am telling you Americans don’t eat noodles. We eat hamburgers and hot dogs with our hands. Look around. Do you see any bowls? Any chopsticks? How are they going to eat your noodles?” Local investors shot down Momofuku’s proposal of bringing his noodles to the US. Where one saw an obstacle; another saw an opportunity. Faced with this new challenge, Momofuku rerouted his energy and came up with a winning solution – instant noodles in a cup.

“No bowls you say? Then I’ll sell them in a cup. We will put a snap-opened fork inside, too. Just fill it with hot water from a kettle. It’s as convenient as a hamburger!” Momofuku countered with yet another innovation. And the rest was history. His invention started the next era of ‘Cup Noodles’. The all-inclusive product first appeared on US shelves in 1971. It would go on to become tremendously successful all over the world. Momofuku was 61 years old. Yet, his dream of ‘putting noodles on every table’ would continue.

Brain Insights

Everyone has energy. The founding principle of leadership energy is that everyone has energy. It is the common currency that fuels all humans. Whether we are rich or poor; young or old; male or female; owner or employee, there exists energy within all of us. The challenge is to recognize that energy and do something useful about ours. Momofuku was just another 40+ years old failing businessman trying to get by in a difficult world. But he saw a present he did not like, and a future he aspired to create. Thus, his leadership energy was born.
Find your purpose. Give your story a meaning. Energy is merely a ‘currency’ much like money in our wallet. We need to learn how to best spend it – to find our purpose. What I love about Momofuku’s story was the clarity of his dream of ‘putting noodles on every table’. I recently interviewed Isabel Medem, a world’s top entrepreneur whose purpose was devoted to ‘putting a toilet in every home’. One Peruvian mother told her “my young son learned to use the toilet by himself because of what you have done”. A purpose is what makes your spending your energy worthwhile.
Reroute the energy. A leadership journey is always uphill so leaders must learn to channel their energy upward. Momofuku ran into yet another problem trying to scale-up his production. Fried and dried noodles would not fit systematically into their cups. He was so nauseous with the stress that one night he saw his house spinning and had to lie down. Amazingly that gave birth to a brilliant solution. Instead of trying to force noodles into cups, why not turn the cups upside down and ‘put cups over noodles’?

Thirty years later, instant cup noodles are available for people in every corner of the world. Had the aging inventor then fulfilled his vision of ‘putting noodles on every table’ Not at all. At the age of 95, Momofuku’s leadership energy was still churning. His next goal was to make instant noodles for astronauts during their duty outside the world. He wanted his noodles to ‘go to space’! July 27th, 2005 on the shuttle Discovery, Momofuku’s dream of ‘Space Noodles’ was realized.

Unlike most other space food, the Nissin noodles were not squeezed out of a bag but rather eaten with chopsticks. “It wouldn’t be noodles if you slurp through a tube.” The near-century-old man beamed like a young boy. He was watching news footage of Japanese astronauts eating noodles while floating around weightlessly above the earth. Two years later, Momofuku Ando left this world in peace – undoubtedly packed with a bagful of new ideas with him.

What’s your leadership energy?

He can be contacted at thun@asb.edu.my.

If you are interested to know more about our exciting Executive Education program click here.

Category: ASB Thought Leadership

Is it always a good thing for people in the organisation to be like a family?

Leadership Insights

Leadership Insights:

The question is “Why?”

Leadership Insights

The Outlook of Innovation

Finding Creative People Continues to be the Roadblock

Loyalty and Interpersonal Skills: The Nemesis of Innovation?

Shift from people focus to idea focus.

So, how can you get started? Get yourself, and your employees, a think buddy.

A Think buddy is someone to help ideas grow

What must organizations do to foster and maximize their capture rate of innovation?

A brief background on Innovating Inside-Out:

Question 1: What are the benefits of going for this Innovating-Inside Out workshop for corporate companies?

Question 2: How can we measure the success of the workshop for the companies?

Question 3: Have you noticed if the productivity of the company increases through the workshop you are setting up? What do the numbers really look like”?

Question 4: How have the responses been from the companies attending the workshops?

Question 5: As innovation evolved in the 21st century, how can companies change their DNA? Please elaborate.

Question 6: Please tell us in detail about the Empathy Lens© technique, Lateral Design© and Think Buddy©? How can these techniques benefit companies?

Question 7: How important is it for corporates to innovate?

Question 8: How many participants would you expect for a workshop?

Question 9: Are these techniques to learn for all corporates or for companies in certain sectors only? And why?

Question 10: How important is it for traditional companies in Malaysia to innovate?

Question 11: In Malaysia, how do you see our corporate sector innovating? How many percents is actually innovating?

Question 12: Are we innovating fast compared to other South East Asian countries? Or are we lagging behind?

Question 13: What are the challenges you see in Malaysia for the corporate sector to be innovative?

Question 14: Or the government needs to do? Your advice?

Question 15: How about what the government needs to do? Your advice?

Question 16: Any targets for the Malaysian corporate market that you want to achieve?

Insights for Leaders:

Brain Insights

Need more information? Reach out to us.