SO much time has been devoted to studying the martial ways, and how they could help us modern managers in our work.
Ancient manuscripts, such as Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” or Miyamoto Musashi’s “The Book of Five Rings,” have been the topic of countless scholarly articles and dissertations, that we are probably justified to think that we now know all we need to know about the ways of the warrior, and how we could put them to effective use in our own workplaces.
Pinoy Votes: Sun.Star Election 2007
Perhaps so, but more probably, perhaps not.
When I lived in the United States a few years back, I had the opportunity to practice with one of the Southeast’s most senior American aikido instructors.
In one of our lighter moments—and because, at the time, I was moving a lot between different cities and trying desperately to search for dojos to practice with—he told me his “method” for spotting the serious practitioners from the less-than-serious ones. And it was—“if a dojo is located in a strip mall, then it probably is not a proper one.”
It may have been light-hearted advice, but beneath the words lie a great deal of truth.
Many of the dojos that set up shop in malls are there offering a service that the rest of the businesses in the malls offer— quick, fast and convenient satisfaction of our needs and wants. And this is in direct contradiction with the way of the warrior arts.
So I get back to my earlier question on whether the countless books on Sun-Tzu and Musashi really teach us anything useful about the warrior arts and management. And my answer—perhaps it is as useful as studying the martial arts in a strip mall dojo.
Many of us who have studied the martial arts for some time will know this— they cannot be learned from a book alone.
Despite what we sometimes see in Jackie Chan movies, no one picks up a set of pictures, studies the forms on them, and in a few days becomes competent enough to challenge the neighborhood bad guy to a fight. It just does not happen like that.
More often than not, countless bruises, scrapes and skinned knees later, many of us will not even have gained the competence to scare, much less hurt, our baddie. Even just on a physical level, competence in the ways of the warrior takes a long time to learn and perfect.
And yet, gaining true insights in the relevance of Sun Tzu’s and Musashi’s thoughts require more than just experiencing the physical aspect of martial training.
Though it is certainly a start, learning to punch and kick properly is just an aspect of warrior life—a tiny, miniscule aspect at that, might I add.
So how are we then—as managers— supposed to pick up this knowledge? Is it only through actual practice of the warrior arts that we can be enlightened?
One of aikido’s most senior uchi deshi, T.K.Chiba Shihan, has this to say about his perspective on martial training.
“As martial artists, we are familiar with the term “martial” and much accustomed to using it frequently. However, I doubt if we can really understand its original meaning, in particular as our understanding is based upon the type of training, conditions and environment we have created by training in a dojo.
In my view, however hard and intense our training may be, we are still very far from the essential concept of “martial” and are barely scratching the surface. lt is unrealistic to think that, in today’s dojo environment, we can simulate a situation, like jumping off a one thousand foot high cliff or, in Zen expression, taking a step off the tip of a one hundred - foot high pole, where one is forced to face a desperate plight, and where one is able to transcend oneself beyond life and death.”
This article concludes next week.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, May 05, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/05/05/bus/batuhan.the.warrior.manager.html)
Saturday, 5 May 2007
Saturday, 28 April 2007
No thanks, Mr. Guingona
Not a lot has changed with Philippine Airlines.
During my last visit to the country, I was once again witness to PAL’s enduring legend as a metaphor of organisational ossification. PAL embodies the old adage of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” and takes its iconic status very seriously indeed. Surely the airline is as close to being broke as any business can be, but I believe it isn’t totally so, or otherwise things would start changing.
Ever the old dinosaur, PAL has remained perpetually anachronistic. The Bacolod office in particular, where I was made to bear the consequences of their tried and tested “the customer is not always right” philosophy, seems to be frozen in time – with the same set of indifferent faces, the same tired looking computer terminals, and the same long queues of people frustrated at not being able to purchase flight tickets within a humanly tolerable time.
Consider this – a simple itinerary change to my ticket – which many airlines today would allow you to do online in minutes took me over three-and-a-half days to complete. No, actually I take that back. It was not me who completed the transaction – my wife had to send their office secretary to PAL to retrieve the amended tickets, as our patience had by then already worn thin from our various trips back and forth to their ticket office.
I have to thank PAL for one thing, however, which I never would have been able to accomplish had it not been for their perfectly executed delaying tactics. Yes I was able to read the local news – from cover to cover of all the leading national publications. The delay was that bad that by the end of it, I had memorised the names of the editorial staff of most of the daily papers.
One of the things that caught my attention was an open letter from one of our elderly statesmen of Philippine politics – Citizen Teofisto Guingona – who I believe is not at this time running for public office.
His open letter started as many other open letters would at this time of the year. Extolling the heroic virtues and the valiant struggles of the Filipino people against all forms of oppression and tyranny, he then goes on to admonish us to root out a problem he singled out to be a big one for this nation – that of corruption.
Having caught my attention, however, on an issue that I am also very passionate about, he just as quickly lost my interest as he had aroused it.
In his letter, Guingona trivialises the extent of the problem by asking us to be on the lookout for the “customs man at the airport” who asks for bribes to let us through without a hassle. He also warns us about the “BIR inspector” after grease money, in order to let us get away with paying lower taxes.
For a man I had previously admired as having more principle than most, Mr. Guingona did not impress me that day in the slightest.
The customs man at the airport and the BIR inspector on the take are such peripheral players in the issue of graft they may as well not have been mentioned at all.
The big players in this high stakes game are some of our highest officials in the land, who have sold our collective national soul to the highest bidder. They are in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and every public edifice which houses anyone of sufficiently high political stature.
Our BIR and customs men are merely privates in this game of generals. If Mr. Guingona had really wanted his letter to mean something, he would have known better than to heap the blame at them.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 28, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/04/28/bus/batuhan.no.thanks.mr..guingona.html)
During my last visit to the country, I was once again witness to PAL’s enduring legend as a metaphor of organisational ossification. PAL embodies the old adage of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” and takes its iconic status very seriously indeed. Surely the airline is as close to being broke as any business can be, but I believe it isn’t totally so, or otherwise things would start changing.
Ever the old dinosaur, PAL has remained perpetually anachronistic. The Bacolod office in particular, where I was made to bear the consequences of their tried and tested “the customer is not always right” philosophy, seems to be frozen in time – with the same set of indifferent faces, the same tired looking computer terminals, and the same long queues of people frustrated at not being able to purchase flight tickets within a humanly tolerable time.
Consider this – a simple itinerary change to my ticket – which many airlines today would allow you to do online in minutes took me over three-and-a-half days to complete. No, actually I take that back. It was not me who completed the transaction – my wife had to send their office secretary to PAL to retrieve the amended tickets, as our patience had by then already worn thin from our various trips back and forth to their ticket office.
I have to thank PAL for one thing, however, which I never would have been able to accomplish had it not been for their perfectly executed delaying tactics. Yes I was able to read the local news – from cover to cover of all the leading national publications. The delay was that bad that by the end of it, I had memorised the names of the editorial staff of most of the daily papers.
One of the things that caught my attention was an open letter from one of our elderly statesmen of Philippine politics – Citizen Teofisto Guingona – who I believe is not at this time running for public office.
His open letter started as many other open letters would at this time of the year. Extolling the heroic virtues and the valiant struggles of the Filipino people against all forms of oppression and tyranny, he then goes on to admonish us to root out a problem he singled out to be a big one for this nation – that of corruption.
Having caught my attention, however, on an issue that I am also very passionate about, he just as quickly lost my interest as he had aroused it.
In his letter, Guingona trivialises the extent of the problem by asking us to be on the lookout for the “customs man at the airport” who asks for bribes to let us through without a hassle. He also warns us about the “BIR inspector” after grease money, in order to let us get away with paying lower taxes.
For a man I had previously admired as having more principle than most, Mr. Guingona did not impress me that day in the slightest.
The customs man at the airport and the BIR inspector on the take are such peripheral players in the issue of graft they may as well not have been mentioned at all.
The big players in this high stakes game are some of our highest officials in the land, who have sold our collective national soul to the highest bidder. They are in the Senate, the House of Representatives, and every public edifice which houses anyone of sufficiently high political stature.
Our BIR and customs men are merely privates in this game of generals. If Mr. Guingona had really wanted his letter to mean something, he would have known better than to heap the blame at them.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 28, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/04/28/bus/batuhan.no.thanks.mr..guingona.html)
Saturday, 21 April 2007
Despair in May
IF there should be times I do not wish to be in the Philippines, it would have to be during May of an election year.
Unfortunately for me, there was little choice, given my work schedule and my wife’s and son’s timetables, except to pick this time of the year to spend a much needed breather back home.
On the plus side—despite the depression that set in once I saw the same recycled names vying for public office—our family was able to enjoy the fantastic attractions of Bohol Island, in the company of my brother Totol, his wife Apples and son, JM.
The experience was that memorable, I decided to devote last week’s column to sing its praises.
But whatever it is that delights me, somehow it can never fully offset the sadness I feel whenever I see my country, going yet again through the motions of a national election.
It pains me immensely because—
Candidates for public office are again from the same old names—scions of well-entrenched political dynasties that have monopolized this country for ages, and have sadly brought it very little good.
Whoever the victors happen to be, majority of them will have nothing new to offer the country, except perhaps to set in train a series of scandals, corruption allegations and political crises, that would only serve to drag our country backwards, rather than propel its progress forwards.
I know that whichever crop of leaders get into power, there will always be another group of sore losers doing their very best to ensure that those elected will never have a chance of succeeding in office.
Our people have become so jaded with the political process, they now see it not as an opportunity to usher in change, but merely as another chance to make some extra money, to ensure that next meal on their table.
Despite the frenetic pace of development that I see among our neighbors as I travel around within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) region, there is very little sign of it in the Philippines. Instead, the only thing that I can relate to in the country as far as Asean is concerned is that embarrassing scandal in Cebu, concerning the hugely overpriced lamp posts that were hastily erected along the route to the Asean convention—from Mactan airport to the North Reclamation Area.
We have an immense wealth of skill and talent from intelligent and well-educated Filipinos, who end up being tapped for the development of the Middle East, Europe and North America, but which our political leaders have no idea how to utilize.
While our health system continues to fail, and our sick countrymen die by the thousands from even the simplest and most easily curable diseases, the only thing our leaders can do is to encourage the tragic diaspora of our health workers to all corners of the globe.
Much as I would love to come back and help my country move forward, there is very little opportunity for me, and others like me here, and the only economically viable choice is to offer our globally marketable skills to the highest bidder.
As l leave my country behind, I have very little hope that things will be better the next time to come back.
When I return home at another May time, a few years down the road, as much as I would like to be writing something hopeful and triumphant then, I may yet again be composing a piece like this—so bereft of hope, so empty of promise, and so full of pain.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 21, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/04/21/bus/batuhan.despair.in.may.html)
Unfortunately for me, there was little choice, given my work schedule and my wife’s and son’s timetables, except to pick this time of the year to spend a much needed breather back home.
On the plus side—despite the depression that set in once I saw the same recycled names vying for public office—our family was able to enjoy the fantastic attractions of Bohol Island, in the company of my brother Totol, his wife Apples and son, JM.
The experience was that memorable, I decided to devote last week’s column to sing its praises.
But whatever it is that delights me, somehow it can never fully offset the sadness I feel whenever I see my country, going yet again through the motions of a national election.
It pains me immensely because—
Candidates for public office are again from the same old names—scions of well-entrenched political dynasties that have monopolized this country for ages, and have sadly brought it very little good.
Whoever the victors happen to be, majority of them will have nothing new to offer the country, except perhaps to set in train a series of scandals, corruption allegations and political crises, that would only serve to drag our country backwards, rather than propel its progress forwards.
I know that whichever crop of leaders get into power, there will always be another group of sore losers doing their very best to ensure that those elected will never have a chance of succeeding in office.
Our people have become so jaded with the political process, they now see it not as an opportunity to usher in change, but merely as another chance to make some extra money, to ensure that next meal on their table.
Despite the frenetic pace of development that I see among our neighbors as I travel around within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) region, there is very little sign of it in the Philippines. Instead, the only thing that I can relate to in the country as far as Asean is concerned is that embarrassing scandal in Cebu, concerning the hugely overpriced lamp posts that were hastily erected along the route to the Asean convention—from Mactan airport to the North Reclamation Area.
We have an immense wealth of skill and talent from intelligent and well-educated Filipinos, who end up being tapped for the development of the Middle East, Europe and North America, but which our political leaders have no idea how to utilize.
While our health system continues to fail, and our sick countrymen die by the thousands from even the simplest and most easily curable diseases, the only thing our leaders can do is to encourage the tragic diaspora of our health workers to all corners of the globe.
Much as I would love to come back and help my country move forward, there is very little opportunity for me, and others like me here, and the only economically viable choice is to offer our globally marketable skills to the highest bidder.
As l leave my country behind, I have very little hope that things will be better the next time to come back.
When I return home at another May time, a few years down the road, as much as I would like to be writing something hopeful and triumphant then, I may yet again be composing a piece like this—so bereft of hope, so empty of promise, and so full of pain.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 21, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/04/21/bus/batuhan.despair.in.may.html)
Saturday, 14 April 2007
A Taste of Bohol Heaven
I WAS going to cap a series of pieces on corporate strategic alignment—which we had been discussing prior to the Holy Week break—when a number of events during my Easter holiday back home convinced me to defer the concluding article, in favor of more pleasant local matters.
This was our brief but very enjoyable getaway to Panglao Island in Bohol, during the first half of the Holy Week, which we took together with my brother Totol Batuhan and his family.
With all the hype and attention focused on that other Visayan island of Boracay, it is easy to forget that Bohol too has all the natural charms—and more —to rival the attractions of its more acclaimed cousin to the west. In fact, having revisited the island after last setting foot on it many years ago, I was astonished to discover that in a lot of ways, Bohol is a much better family destination than Boracay.
Unlike Boracay—which masquerades as Manila by the seaside—often frequented by drunken and rowdy college students on their summer break, Bohol is largely unspoilt, with no trace of the noisy crowds that have become mainstays of its rival vacation destinations. For families looking for some peace and quiet, as well as attractions to visit during their holiday getaway, this is a terrific advantage, which is why in my book, Bohol gets my vote over Boracay.
During our visit, which was a brief but eventful three days and two nights, we were able to pack in a gastronomic lunch cruise along the scenic Loboc river, dolphin- and whale-watching around Pamilacan island, snorkeling amongst colorful tropical fish in the Balicasag marine conservation reserve, touring historic sites like the centuries-old Baclayon Church, as well as observing tarsiers and flying lemurs in their natural habitat. Not to mention having our fill of Bohol’s delicacies, which are as numerous as there are hills of chocolate on this unique island.
Of course, the coup de grace to our total surrender to the charms of Bohol was our fantastic hideaway on Panglao Island—the boutique Amarelo Resort. Having already visited many acclaimed tourist accommodations in the Mediterranean, the United States as well as in neighboring Southeast Asian countries, I rank this one up there among the best, and definitely one to recommend to the discriminating international holiday-maker.
Owned and meticulously managed by former Baker McKenzie partner Atty. Doy Nunag—a native son of Bohol—Amarela is a tastefully furnished corner of heaven, an apt description given its vantage position overlooking the sea, with majestic views of the fiery sunsets and scenic moonrises over the idyllic island. And did I mention the food? No pot noodles in sight here, thank you very much. Instead the resort’s restaurant whips up a culinary offering comparable to the tastiest I have sampled anywhere else.
Having just opened last year, Amarela may not yet be as widely known as the older institutions on the island such as Bohol Beach Club. I have no doubt, however, that as word gets out from its many satisfied guests, it will get more and more difficult to get a booking in the near future.
Another Panglao attraction worthy of mention is this little gem of a place, simply called the Bohol Bee Farm. True to its name, it makes some of the finest honey products, as well as other goodies from ingredients organically grown and produced on its premises. With a scenic restaurant overlooking the sea, and serving original creations such as salads garnished with native flowers and herbs, this is yet another must-see for the discerning tourist.
Finally, just as it seemed our holiday could not get any better than it already was, we were given the warm Boholano hospitality by Tagbilaran Mayor Dan Lim, who graciously treated us to a wonderful meal at the Bee Farm, as well as a sampling of delectable goodies from the farm’s gift shop.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 14, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/04/14/bus/batuhan.a.taste.of.bohol.heaven.html)
This was our brief but very enjoyable getaway to Panglao Island in Bohol, during the first half of the Holy Week, which we took together with my brother Totol Batuhan and his family.
With all the hype and attention focused on that other Visayan island of Boracay, it is easy to forget that Bohol too has all the natural charms—and more —to rival the attractions of its more acclaimed cousin to the west. In fact, having revisited the island after last setting foot on it many years ago, I was astonished to discover that in a lot of ways, Bohol is a much better family destination than Boracay.
Unlike Boracay—which masquerades as Manila by the seaside—often frequented by drunken and rowdy college students on their summer break, Bohol is largely unspoilt, with no trace of the noisy crowds that have become mainstays of its rival vacation destinations. For families looking for some peace and quiet, as well as attractions to visit during their holiday getaway, this is a terrific advantage, which is why in my book, Bohol gets my vote over Boracay.
During our visit, which was a brief but eventful three days and two nights, we were able to pack in a gastronomic lunch cruise along the scenic Loboc river, dolphin- and whale-watching around Pamilacan island, snorkeling amongst colorful tropical fish in the Balicasag marine conservation reserve, touring historic sites like the centuries-old Baclayon Church, as well as observing tarsiers and flying lemurs in their natural habitat. Not to mention having our fill of Bohol’s delicacies, which are as numerous as there are hills of chocolate on this unique island.
Of course, the coup de grace to our total surrender to the charms of Bohol was our fantastic hideaway on Panglao Island—the boutique Amarelo Resort. Having already visited many acclaimed tourist accommodations in the Mediterranean, the United States as well as in neighboring Southeast Asian countries, I rank this one up there among the best, and definitely one to recommend to the discriminating international holiday-maker.
Owned and meticulously managed by former Baker McKenzie partner Atty. Doy Nunag—a native son of Bohol—Amarela is a tastefully furnished corner of heaven, an apt description given its vantage position overlooking the sea, with majestic views of the fiery sunsets and scenic moonrises over the idyllic island. And did I mention the food? No pot noodles in sight here, thank you very much. Instead the resort’s restaurant whips up a culinary offering comparable to the tastiest I have sampled anywhere else.
Having just opened last year, Amarela may not yet be as widely known as the older institutions on the island such as Bohol Beach Club. I have no doubt, however, that as word gets out from its many satisfied guests, it will get more and more difficult to get a booking in the near future.
Another Panglao attraction worthy of mention is this little gem of a place, simply called the Bohol Bee Farm. True to its name, it makes some of the finest honey products, as well as other goodies from ingredients organically grown and produced on its premises. With a scenic restaurant overlooking the sea, and serving original creations such as salads garnished with native flowers and herbs, this is yet another must-see for the discerning tourist.
Finally, just as it seemed our holiday could not get any better than it already was, we were given the warm Boholano hospitality by Tagbilaran Mayor Dan Lim, who graciously treated us to a wonderful meal at the Bee Farm, as well as a sampling of delectable goodies from the farm’s gift shop.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 14, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/04/14/bus/batuhan.a.taste.of.bohol.heaven.html)
Saturday, 31 March 2007
Working Together
THERE seems to be something about the sport of rowing that makes it look like an endeavor meant only for intelligent individuals.
For a start, it requires perfect motor coordination from the participants— with each stroke by every member of the team timed to exact precision—so no amount of precious energy is dissipated, and everything is channeled towards making the craft move speedily and steadily forward.
Secondly, it requires careful strategic thinking. How many times have we seen it before in Olympic races–rowers starting very fast, only to fade away in the homestretch—with the eventual winner usually the team that is able to maintain a sustained pace all the way from start to finish.
Third, team selection is of utmost importance. A bunch of muscular athletes does not a good rowing team necessarily make. Abilities have to be complementary, as well as supplementary. Each member’s contribution has to be measured in terms of its effect on overall team performance, rather than on individual brilliance alone.
Come to think of it, this is probably the reason why rowing is the sport of choice for esteemed institutions of learning like Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge. It just makes perfect sense—it is a sport for intelligent and thinking individuals.
For me, rowing is the perfect metaphor for how an effective organization ought to be intelligently run.
It has all the same elements that a business needs to have in order to be successful. Let us take each of them in turn.
PERFECT COORDINATION. We remember well the debacle of the American superstars in the last Olympic basketball championships. Despite an enormous wealth of individual talent, they were not a cohesive and coordinated team, with the acrobatic exertions of the gifted players sometimes actually getting in the way of the other members’ performance.
In rowing, there is no place for this. If one side rows faster than the other, the boat will start to spin and go around in circles. Even the slightest hint of an imbalance in effort is enough to hinder forward progress significantly.
TEAM SELECTION. As we have noted, pure brawn is no guarantee for success. In fact, it is a surefire recipe for failure. Selection is therefore geared towards making sure that team members’ strengths are properly matched to others’ weaknesses, so that any individual disadvantage is effectively neutralized.
How many times have we witnessed organizations where key individuals are constantly at each others’ throats, either vying for power supremacy or seeking economic gain?
Sometimes, this is disguised by organizations as embracing diversity, by allowing disparate-minded individuals to work together in a team. Sometimes this is true, and in certain cases beneficial. But uncontrolled diversity could easily degenerate into total chaos, and most teams are probably unaware which side of the diversity divide their own lies.
STRATEGIC THINKING. Of course, no team wins consistently without an effective strategy. The dominance of the LA Lakers and Boston Celtics in the 1980’s, and that of the Chicago Bulls in the 1990’s was no accident. It was not even due to good players primarily, though the fact that they were there helped a lot. It was mostly down to the strategic abilities of Pat Riley, KC Jones and Phil Jackson.
Without the genius that these coaches had in ensuring that their team’s skills were balanced in both attack and defense, and that they had the right complement of players to last the entire campaign to begin with, no Michael Jordan, Larry Bird or Magic Johnson would have been good enough to win as many times as they did.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 31, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/03/31/bus/batuhan.working.together.html)
For a start, it requires perfect motor coordination from the participants— with each stroke by every member of the team timed to exact precision—so no amount of precious energy is dissipated, and everything is channeled towards making the craft move speedily and steadily forward.
Secondly, it requires careful strategic thinking. How many times have we seen it before in Olympic races–rowers starting very fast, only to fade away in the homestretch—with the eventual winner usually the team that is able to maintain a sustained pace all the way from start to finish.
Third, team selection is of utmost importance. A bunch of muscular athletes does not a good rowing team necessarily make. Abilities have to be complementary, as well as supplementary. Each member’s contribution has to be measured in terms of its effect on overall team performance, rather than on individual brilliance alone.
Come to think of it, this is probably the reason why rowing is the sport of choice for esteemed institutions of learning like Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge. It just makes perfect sense—it is a sport for intelligent and thinking individuals.
For me, rowing is the perfect metaphor for how an effective organization ought to be intelligently run.
It has all the same elements that a business needs to have in order to be successful. Let us take each of them in turn.
PERFECT COORDINATION. We remember well the debacle of the American superstars in the last Olympic basketball championships. Despite an enormous wealth of individual talent, they were not a cohesive and coordinated team, with the acrobatic exertions of the gifted players sometimes actually getting in the way of the other members’ performance.
In rowing, there is no place for this. If one side rows faster than the other, the boat will start to spin and go around in circles. Even the slightest hint of an imbalance in effort is enough to hinder forward progress significantly.
TEAM SELECTION. As we have noted, pure brawn is no guarantee for success. In fact, it is a surefire recipe for failure. Selection is therefore geared towards making sure that team members’ strengths are properly matched to others’ weaknesses, so that any individual disadvantage is effectively neutralized.
How many times have we witnessed organizations where key individuals are constantly at each others’ throats, either vying for power supremacy or seeking economic gain?
Sometimes, this is disguised by organizations as embracing diversity, by allowing disparate-minded individuals to work together in a team. Sometimes this is true, and in certain cases beneficial. But uncontrolled diversity could easily degenerate into total chaos, and most teams are probably unaware which side of the diversity divide their own lies.
STRATEGIC THINKING. Of course, no team wins consistently without an effective strategy. The dominance of the LA Lakers and Boston Celtics in the 1980’s, and that of the Chicago Bulls in the 1990’s was no accident. It was not even due to good players primarily, though the fact that they were there helped a lot. It was mostly down to the strategic abilities of Pat Riley, KC Jones and Phil Jackson.
Without the genius that these coaches had in ensuring that their team’s skills were balanced in both attack and defense, and that they had the right complement of players to last the entire campaign to begin with, no Michael Jordan, Larry Bird or Magic Johnson would have been good enough to win as many times as they did.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 31, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/03/31/bus/batuhan.working.together.html)
Saturday, 10 March 2007
Pulling Apart (Part 3)
ISN'T it funny how the things we write about are also the ones that invariably turn up soon after in our own work situations? It almost feels a bit like imagining a song in your head, only to hear someone close to you start singing exactly the same tune.
In the last couple of weeks, we have been looking at a common problem that plagues most businesses today — that of their component parts striving to achieve improvement in their own little areas of responsibility but failing to better the plight of their entire organizations in the process.
This past week, one of the country managers of the region I look after excitedly asked me to his office. He started talking about how our costing routines don’t properly reflect the true cost of making products in our factories. Without commenting on his epiphany, I just let him continue. He went on about how the way we allocate costs to products are not applicable to our other factories in the region, and therefore we do not really know which place produces things more economically than another.
Right that instant, I heard the song I was singing in my head being loudly sung in front of me. Here was a person, looking after the commercial health and viability of an enterprise, saying exactly the same things which we said were problematic in terms of trying to better manage an organization. Here it was, and there was precious little I could do about it, at least in the short term.
There were a few things not quite right with his observations, for a start. The costing system he was talking about, though adequate for valuing the cost of inventory, never stood the chance of being remotely useful in providing comparative information that allowed for comparisons with anywhere else. For a start, the costs it produced did not even reflect the “economic value” of products made in its own factory, let alone provide any meaningful benchmarks with another business.
The factory he was referring to was still allocating non-variable costs to products by means of a single plant-wide driver — direct labor hours. How does that give any indication of value when shifting people around could easily cause such wide fluctuations in the “profitability” of products? The answer — it does not.
An even greater problem that relates to our immediate subject matter was the desire to “improve” the quality of our costing system, by looking at better allocations of costs to our products. Apparently, doing something wrong better makes it right? Or perhaps I was missing a point here?
There were no points I missed, of course. Everything I heard was consistent with what we were saying all along – the fact that many organizations believe that creating little improvements everywhere in their organization eventually translates into benefits for the whole.
Granted that the costing system was accurate — which it wasn’t — non-variable costs were still minuscule in relation to the total in any case — no more than seven percent of total product costs were “fixed.”
So why concentrate time and effort on “properly allocating” the seven percent to the rest of the 93 percent? What fvalue does this add to our understanding of the business?
Something is surely at fault here. That something is preventing (or at least not helping) organizations focus on their real issues, and spend their time and resources where the results matter most.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 10, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/03/10/bus/batuhan.pulling.apart.(part.3).html)
In the last couple of weeks, we have been looking at a common problem that plagues most businesses today — that of their component parts striving to achieve improvement in their own little areas of responsibility but failing to better the plight of their entire organizations in the process.
This past week, one of the country managers of the region I look after excitedly asked me to his office. He started talking about how our costing routines don’t properly reflect the true cost of making products in our factories. Without commenting on his epiphany, I just let him continue. He went on about how the way we allocate costs to products are not applicable to our other factories in the region, and therefore we do not really know which place produces things more economically than another.
Right that instant, I heard the song I was singing in my head being loudly sung in front of me. Here was a person, looking after the commercial health and viability of an enterprise, saying exactly the same things which we said were problematic in terms of trying to better manage an organization. Here it was, and there was precious little I could do about it, at least in the short term.
There were a few things not quite right with his observations, for a start. The costing system he was talking about, though adequate for valuing the cost of inventory, never stood the chance of being remotely useful in providing comparative information that allowed for comparisons with anywhere else. For a start, the costs it produced did not even reflect the “economic value” of products made in its own factory, let alone provide any meaningful benchmarks with another business.
The factory he was referring to was still allocating non-variable costs to products by means of a single plant-wide driver — direct labor hours. How does that give any indication of value when shifting people around could easily cause such wide fluctuations in the “profitability” of products? The answer — it does not.
An even greater problem that relates to our immediate subject matter was the desire to “improve” the quality of our costing system, by looking at better allocations of costs to our products. Apparently, doing something wrong better makes it right? Or perhaps I was missing a point here?
There were no points I missed, of course. Everything I heard was consistent with what we were saying all along – the fact that many organizations believe that creating little improvements everywhere in their organization eventually translates into benefits for the whole.
Granted that the costing system was accurate — which it wasn’t — non-variable costs were still minuscule in relation to the total in any case — no more than seven percent of total product costs were “fixed.”
So why concentrate time and effort on “properly allocating” the seven percent to the rest of the 93 percent? What fvalue does this add to our understanding of the business?
Something is surely at fault here. That something is preventing (or at least not helping) organizations focus on their real issues, and spend their time and resources where the results matter most.
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, March 10, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/03/10/bus/batuhan.pulling.apart.(part.3).html)
Saturday, 24 February 2007
Pulling Apart
YOU have probably heard the latest joke about Airbus. It’s not about its financial or management state of affairs, but about its planes — the one that goes: “an Airbus plane is a Boeing made in Europe.”
No, it doesn’t sound so funny; not unless you are European. But the jibe hits true and to the point — a large part of Airbus’ problems is related to the fact that it is made according to European ways of making things.
And just what is not right with the European way of making things? Isn’t France well known for fantastic designs, Germany for meticulous engineering, and the UK for good old world charm and elegance?
Isn’t this why we go for French haute couture, English Aston Martins and German BMWs? Yet, why is it that when the three get together to build a plane, the result leaves customers less than delighted?
It is supposed to be Airbus’ trump card on Boeing. Larger than any airliner ever built, the A380 could fly more people across continents in a way never before seen in aviation history. The new Airbus plane would be the “palace of the skies” carrying travelers to their destinations in unprecedented levels of comfort.
But the road (or, in this case, flight path) to the A380’s blue skies has been nothing but blue. Long delays in production have set back delivery dates to major airlines by more than a year in many cases, leaving executives fuming and looking for compensation from the company, to reduce their losses.
To detractors of the European way of doing things, it is easy to blame the plane’s European heritage for its problems. Many Europeans themselves believe this to be the case — that the British, French, German and Spanish makers of the plane could not, among themselves, sit down in peace long enough to make something that works well, on time and to customers’ expectations.
To a large extent, there is a lot of truth to this. Small though the continent may be, Europe is a fractious grouping of states and peoples that have never really wished to work closely together, and only less than a hundred years ago, have been actively waging war on one another on a large scale, to prove the point.
Taking it out of its geo-cultural context, however, it is easy to see the problem as the embodiment of how various parts of organizations — whether they be different departments within the same division, separate divisions within the same company or related companies within the same group — often end up working at cross purposes to one another, albeit with the best of intentions in their efforts.
How many times have we heard “Sales and Marketing” complain about “Finance” while “Manufacturing” blames “Supply Chain,” and everybody else point at “Human Resources” for causing them problems, and being the reason for their inability to deliver on their objectives? If the organizations you work for are anything like the ones I know, “too many times” would be the answer.
What’s the problem? Is this the way organizations are supposed to be working, and we are inescapably doomed to have to accept this as a way of life? Or can something be done about it, so that we could pull together and achieve our common objective?
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, February 24, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/02/24/bus/batuhan.pulling.apart.html).
No, it doesn’t sound so funny; not unless you are European. But the jibe hits true and to the point — a large part of Airbus’ problems is related to the fact that it is made according to European ways of making things.
And just what is not right with the European way of making things? Isn’t France well known for fantastic designs, Germany for meticulous engineering, and the UK for good old world charm and elegance?
Isn’t this why we go for French haute couture, English Aston Martins and German BMWs? Yet, why is it that when the three get together to build a plane, the result leaves customers less than delighted?
It is supposed to be Airbus’ trump card on Boeing. Larger than any airliner ever built, the A380 could fly more people across continents in a way never before seen in aviation history. The new Airbus plane would be the “palace of the skies” carrying travelers to their destinations in unprecedented levels of comfort.
But the road (or, in this case, flight path) to the A380’s blue skies has been nothing but blue. Long delays in production have set back delivery dates to major airlines by more than a year in many cases, leaving executives fuming and looking for compensation from the company, to reduce their losses.
To detractors of the European way of doing things, it is easy to blame the plane’s European heritage for its problems. Many Europeans themselves believe this to be the case — that the British, French, German and Spanish makers of the plane could not, among themselves, sit down in peace long enough to make something that works well, on time and to customers’ expectations.
To a large extent, there is a lot of truth to this. Small though the continent may be, Europe is a fractious grouping of states and peoples that have never really wished to work closely together, and only less than a hundred years ago, have been actively waging war on one another on a large scale, to prove the point.
Taking it out of its geo-cultural context, however, it is easy to see the problem as the embodiment of how various parts of organizations — whether they be different departments within the same division, separate divisions within the same company or related companies within the same group — often end up working at cross purposes to one another, albeit with the best of intentions in their efforts.
How many times have we heard “Sales and Marketing” complain about “Finance” while “Manufacturing” blames “Supply Chain,” and everybody else point at “Human Resources” for causing them problems, and being the reason for their inability to deliver on their objectives? If the organizations you work for are anything like the ones I know, “too many times” would be the answer.
What’s the problem? Is this the way organizations are supposed to be working, and we are inescapably doomed to have to accept this as a way of life? Or can something be done about it, so that we could pull together and achieve our common objective?
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, February 24, 2007 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2007/02/24/bus/batuhan.pulling.apart.html).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)