The ancient Greeks perhaps never imagined what sports would be like, almost 3,000 years since they made it an important public institution.
Today of course, sport has become even more of an institution than they could ever have imagined. By the time their modern descendants won soccer’s European Cup 2,780 years since the first games were staged in Ancient Olympus, it has become a billion dollar industry from which hundreds of corporations profit, and most of the world lives and breathes by.
Perhaps no better example of this phenomenon was the just concluded FIFA World Cup, where probably the actual games themselves were only the sideshow to the real competition between Adidas and Nike, Mastercard and the other purveyors of plastic money, as well as other rival corporate pairings for whom the event meant their share prices either going through the roof, or plummeting to the floor.
Nothing in sports today is devoid of monetary value. How much was it worth to the Italians winning the World Cup? Well, 0.5 percent of their GDP, to be exact.
According to their own economic experts, this is how much their economy would be buoyed by the victory. That’s $80.5 billion, for those who can grasp money better than GDP percentages. Yes—that much more in pizza and pasta eaten, Chianti and Lambrusco imbibed, and Gucci and Prada bought from snazzy Milanese boutiques, because of the heady exuberance sweeping the Italian nation when their Azzurri came back with the golden trophy.
And what about FIFA, football’s international governing body, whose politics attract more interest than most nations ever would? Well, they supposedly profited a whopping $1.4 Billion from the month-long enterprise.
No wonder its president, Joseph Blatter, has the temerity to suggest that England ought to have played a more “attacking” kind of football during their matches! His organization has more resources at its disposal than even some of the countries whose teams were represented in the tournament.
Purists will bemoan sports’ loss of its nobility of purpose. And who can blame them? Seeing Portugal’s players dive to the turf time and again, just to ensure that their team secured victory at all costs was probably no different from witnessing Ancient Olympia being bulldozed to the ground, and replaced by a giant shopping mall.
And what to make of NBA superstars and their cribs on MTV? Or the same superstars insisting on staying in five-star hotels while playing in the modern equivalent of the Olympic Games?
Where have all the athletes gone? “Gone to their investment bankers, everyone” would seem to be the appropriately plaintive reply.
Modern sports is no longer simply the noble pursuit of physical excellence that the ancient Greeks wished it to be, and Baron de Coubertin tried in vain to preserve. Winning is now everything, and whatever it takes to gain financially from the undertaking is fair game – whether this means steroids, game fixing or outright crime.
Even as the Italian public celebrate their victory, the clubs with whom their players earn their living are being investigated for rigging the results of matches, all in the pursuit of illegitimate financial gains.
Only the most quixotic of sportsmen now play their game for the sake of it. But even just in our dreams, wouldn’t it be nice to imagine a time when athletes could still compete for the sheer enjoyment of it, when the brand of one’s uniform mattered little, and when conscience rather than corporate sponsors dictated appropriate sporting behavior?
Yes, it would be nice. And yes, it can only now happen in our dreams.
***
I would like to wish my mother, Carmencita Banzon Batuhan, a belated Happy Birthday!
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, July 15, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/07/15/bus/batuhan.business.of.sport.html)
Saturday, 15 July 2006
Saturday, 8 July 2006
What price victory?
The current World Cup—now on its final stage with the epic clash between footballing titans Italy and France this weekend—has by and large been a very exciting sporting event.
More perhaps in the earlier stages than the latter, the participating nations have been quite keen to observe the fair play and sportsmanship that FIFA have taken great pains to stress over and over again in the game.
More than just lip service and token gestures however, the emphasis on fair play and good behavior is critically important in the sport of soccer. Watched by billions of fans around the world and supported by billions of dollars in corporate sponsorships, it is not only the biggest show on earth, but quite literally the biggest sporting business in the planet.
Its stalwarts are worth millions in advertising revenue, with the likes of David Beckham and Ronaldinho easily eclipsing big name American sports stars in terms of advertising income. No wonder it is difficult to play fair and square when it comes down to one’s passbook.
It is therefore no coincidence that the knockout stages— that make or break time when the outcome of a single game determines whether a team goes further in the tournament or goes home—departs from the earlier atmosphere of fair play.
One of the best examples, perhaps, of the change in mood from “gentlemanly” to “take no prisoners” was the contest between The Netherlands and Portugal. In all, the referee showed sixteen yellow cards and sent off three players amidst one of the worst scenes of cheating and dirty tactics ever seen in a major tournament.
Portugal particularly has developed a nasty reputation in this competition for all-around dirty play and rule-breaking. This reached sickening heights in the semi-final contest with France, when Portuguese players would just mysteriously fall to the ground without being tackled, in the hope of getting free kicks or penalties from the referee. Unfortunately, like the boy who cried wolf once too often, the referee never paid any attention to their protestations, even if in some instances it did look like some real fouls were being committed against them.
And of course, such is the irony of life and sport that those who live by cheating are bound to get a dose of their medicine.
Portugal’s exit was by virtue of a penalty kick awarded to France, in what looked to be a questionable foul committed on Thiery Henry while in a scoring opportunity. Appropriate comeuppance for the cheats indeed, if ever one was needed.
It is doubtful, however, if any of this will restore the game to a pristine state of chivalric purity. Too much is at stake, and too much stand to be lost. For the players the World Cup is the chance to sell their wares to prospective clubs and corporate sponsors. In the space of a month millions of dollars in potential transfer deals and advertising clout have been lost by erstwhile top class players who failed to perform to their ability, while millions more were gained by those who have patiently waited on the sidelines, and then used the occasion to show how good their skills were. Exit David Beckham and Roberto Carlos. Enter Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres.
And yet the pure football fan, wishing only to be mesmerized and entertained by the magicians of the sport, is the one being shortchanged in all this. But thankfully there is still a lesson to be learned here further down the road – fans buy the products that football players advertise. Who wants to buy from a cheat?
Indeed, in the end it may be up to us to teach these cheats a lesson in Business 101.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, July 08, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/07/08/bus/batuhan.what.price.victory..html)
More perhaps in the earlier stages than the latter, the participating nations have been quite keen to observe the fair play and sportsmanship that FIFA have taken great pains to stress over and over again in the game.
More than just lip service and token gestures however, the emphasis on fair play and good behavior is critically important in the sport of soccer. Watched by billions of fans around the world and supported by billions of dollars in corporate sponsorships, it is not only the biggest show on earth, but quite literally the biggest sporting business in the planet.
Its stalwarts are worth millions in advertising revenue, with the likes of David Beckham and Ronaldinho easily eclipsing big name American sports stars in terms of advertising income. No wonder it is difficult to play fair and square when it comes down to one’s passbook.
It is therefore no coincidence that the knockout stages— that make or break time when the outcome of a single game determines whether a team goes further in the tournament or goes home—departs from the earlier atmosphere of fair play.
One of the best examples, perhaps, of the change in mood from “gentlemanly” to “take no prisoners” was the contest between The Netherlands and Portugal. In all, the referee showed sixteen yellow cards and sent off three players amidst one of the worst scenes of cheating and dirty tactics ever seen in a major tournament.
Portugal particularly has developed a nasty reputation in this competition for all-around dirty play and rule-breaking. This reached sickening heights in the semi-final contest with France, when Portuguese players would just mysteriously fall to the ground without being tackled, in the hope of getting free kicks or penalties from the referee. Unfortunately, like the boy who cried wolf once too often, the referee never paid any attention to their protestations, even if in some instances it did look like some real fouls were being committed against them.
And of course, such is the irony of life and sport that those who live by cheating are bound to get a dose of their medicine.
Portugal’s exit was by virtue of a penalty kick awarded to France, in what looked to be a questionable foul committed on Thiery Henry while in a scoring opportunity. Appropriate comeuppance for the cheats indeed, if ever one was needed.
It is doubtful, however, if any of this will restore the game to a pristine state of chivalric purity. Too much is at stake, and too much stand to be lost. For the players the World Cup is the chance to sell their wares to prospective clubs and corporate sponsors. In the space of a month millions of dollars in potential transfer deals and advertising clout have been lost by erstwhile top class players who failed to perform to their ability, while millions more were gained by those who have patiently waited on the sidelines, and then used the occasion to show how good their skills were. Exit David Beckham and Roberto Carlos. Enter Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres.
And yet the pure football fan, wishing only to be mesmerized and entertained by the magicians of the sport, is the one being shortchanged in all this. But thankfully there is still a lesson to be learned here further down the road – fans buy the products that football players advertise. Who wants to buy from a cheat?
Indeed, in the end it may be up to us to teach these cheats a lesson in Business 101.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, July 08, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/07/08/bus/batuhan.what.price.victory..html)
Monday, 29 May 2006
Leonardo Inc.
NO doubt, one of the biggest moneymaking schemes of recent years has been the success of the novel The Da Vinci Code. Written by American novelist Dan Brown, the book has sold millions of copies worldwide, and has been made into an action movie boasting a cast and crew of Hollywood’s elite.
I will not attempt a theological or even historical critique of the book here, for so much academic material has been written about it by experts and scholars who were not amused by the many liberties that the author took in embellishing his story to assure its bankability (in the literal sense). More importantly, I am an expert in neither field.
I would rather like to see the book as a symptom of what now seems to be an enduring sign of our times—the money syndrome. In the name of making money and amassing a lot of it, we are allowed to do whatever it takes.
Even amateur writers like ourselves are always observant of the cardinal tenet of our craft—intellectual honesty. We do not knowingly write with intent to deceive, and if inadvertently we have declared something to be true and later discover it not to be so, we immediately and unconditionally apologize for our mistake.
The now millionaire author of the best selling book, unfortunately, can hardly be described as being intellectually honest.
Writers are allowed to express their opinion, in whatever fashion they choose to, without having to be censured or censored for their views. Free speech is a sacred right, and should be enjoyed by everyone, without exception. But no one has the privilege to willingly distort facts and established knowledge, and pass it off as “the truth.” Anyone who does so is not being honest to one’s readers, and especially to one’s self.
I am not a conservative Christian by any means, but as a writer, I find Brown’s arrogance in appropriating historical fact, erroneously twisting them to suit his agenda, and passing them off as “truths” to be indefensible.
Many people have come to the writer’s defense, saying that what he has written is fiction, but Brown himself has lost his own case. In a brazen declaration of either intellectual bankruptcy, hubris, or both he claims as fact (in the opening pages of his book) many historical events that even amateur historians can readily see as being inaccurately portrayed.
But not to worry, he is simply writing fiction.
It is easy to dismiss the furor as much ado about nothing. However, it is a sad social commentary of the times we live in—when morality and truth have become relative instead of being absolute standards, and when we are forced to respect each individual’s interpretation of the truth and their own version of reality. Welcome to The Matrix.
The problem with this is that every charlatan with a sensational idea now feels it is within his right to spin it into millions of dollars in book rights and movie royalties. No matter if the materials on which the fortune is made distorts historical facts and misrepresents established institutions.
What riles me most with the book and the author is not that it attacks religion and religious institutions. For me everything is open to criticism, without exception. What I cannot forgive, however, is the author’s blatant intellectual dishonesty and his arrogant attempts to defend his “facts” on their own merit.
Dan Brown, in writing about something he considers so sacred, has, in fact, committed the biggest sacrilege against his own profession.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Monday, May 29, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/05/29/bus/batuhan.leonardo.inc..html)
I will not attempt a theological or even historical critique of the book here, for so much academic material has been written about it by experts and scholars who were not amused by the many liberties that the author took in embellishing his story to assure its bankability (in the literal sense). More importantly, I am an expert in neither field.
I would rather like to see the book as a symptom of what now seems to be an enduring sign of our times—the money syndrome. In the name of making money and amassing a lot of it, we are allowed to do whatever it takes.
Even amateur writers like ourselves are always observant of the cardinal tenet of our craft—intellectual honesty. We do not knowingly write with intent to deceive, and if inadvertently we have declared something to be true and later discover it not to be so, we immediately and unconditionally apologize for our mistake.
The now millionaire author of the best selling book, unfortunately, can hardly be described as being intellectually honest.
Writers are allowed to express their opinion, in whatever fashion they choose to, without having to be censured or censored for their views. Free speech is a sacred right, and should be enjoyed by everyone, without exception. But no one has the privilege to willingly distort facts and established knowledge, and pass it off as “the truth.” Anyone who does so is not being honest to one’s readers, and especially to one’s self.
I am not a conservative Christian by any means, but as a writer, I find Brown’s arrogance in appropriating historical fact, erroneously twisting them to suit his agenda, and passing them off as “truths” to be indefensible.
Many people have come to the writer’s defense, saying that what he has written is fiction, but Brown himself has lost his own case. In a brazen declaration of either intellectual bankruptcy, hubris, or both he claims as fact (in the opening pages of his book) many historical events that even amateur historians can readily see as being inaccurately portrayed.
But not to worry, he is simply writing fiction.
It is easy to dismiss the furor as much ado about nothing. However, it is a sad social commentary of the times we live in—when morality and truth have become relative instead of being absolute standards, and when we are forced to respect each individual’s interpretation of the truth and their own version of reality. Welcome to The Matrix.
The problem with this is that every charlatan with a sensational idea now feels it is within his right to spin it into millions of dollars in book rights and movie royalties. No matter if the materials on which the fortune is made distorts historical facts and misrepresents established institutions.
What riles me most with the book and the author is not that it attacks religion and religious institutions. For me everything is open to criticism, without exception. What I cannot forgive, however, is the author’s blatant intellectual dishonesty and his arrogant attempts to defend his “facts” on their own merit.
Dan Brown, in writing about something he considers so sacred, has, in fact, committed the biggest sacrilege against his own profession.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Monday, May 29, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/05/29/bus/batuhan.leonardo.inc..html)
Saturday, 20 May 2006
Lost in translation
Common. Cost-saving projects are now common in most business organizations. In all probability, a number will be running in one form or another—within a typical business—at any point in time.
The reasons for these are evident. In a global marketplace where information flows freely across borders, pressures on corporate earnings are greater than ever before.
Once sheltered industries operating in near monopolistic situations are finding themselves more and more vulnerable to foreign competition, not only from within their region but also from far-flung locations.
The rise of China as a low-cost source for almost anything to anywhere has changed the configuration of many industries forever. Today when designing new products or looking at the cost of getting products to markets, China almost always has to figure in the equation. No business anywhere today can operate without consideration to what its competitors in various parts of the world are doing.
Hence cost-saving projects have become even more important components of any company’s commercial strategies.
Realizing that profits cannot just now be met by growing the top line, companies have increasingly looked to the middle to ensure a sustainably healthy bottom line.
To be fair, the Japanese had already realized this inevitability some time back, hence many of the processes and practices employed in this area today are borrowed from them.
As with all change management programs, not all cost saving projects are equally effective in their delivery of the desired results. Most probably never live up to the initial expectations. Clearly, this is not the most motivating outcome for both management and project implementers alike, and is only bound to cause even more stress and friction within an organization.
But what distinguishes a successful cost-saving project from the next failed one? Has anyone ever nailed down a failsafe formula that delivers every time? Is there a tried and tested Holy Grail out there that all businesses should latch on to and model all their efforts after?
Unfortunately not, is probably a more likely answer.
Systems like kaizen and 5S, borrowed from the Japanese, have produced fairly good results for those who have tried it. But lifted from a foreign culture and originally tailored for that culture’s business mentality, their implementation has sometimes been “lost in translation” and produced less than the ideal outcomes.
Having come through a lot of these projects of late in my own organization, my observation has been that although structured systems and processes, such as those of the Japanese, can and do work in many situations, there is still a very important element that in the end determines whether a project succeeds or falls down, and that is all to do with people.
As cliché as it may sound, people and their total involvement in any organizational commitment is still the good old difference between success and failure in any organizational undertaking. Japanese or German, Asian or American, any process of change will only be as successful if the people working for it are committed for success to happen.
More on this next week.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, May 20, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/05/20/bus/batuhan.lost.in.translation.html)
The reasons for these are evident. In a global marketplace where information flows freely across borders, pressures on corporate earnings are greater than ever before.
Once sheltered industries operating in near monopolistic situations are finding themselves more and more vulnerable to foreign competition, not only from within their region but also from far-flung locations.
The rise of China as a low-cost source for almost anything to anywhere has changed the configuration of many industries forever. Today when designing new products or looking at the cost of getting products to markets, China almost always has to figure in the equation. No business anywhere today can operate without consideration to what its competitors in various parts of the world are doing.
Hence cost-saving projects have become even more important components of any company’s commercial strategies.
Realizing that profits cannot just now be met by growing the top line, companies have increasingly looked to the middle to ensure a sustainably healthy bottom line.
To be fair, the Japanese had already realized this inevitability some time back, hence many of the processes and practices employed in this area today are borrowed from them.
As with all change management programs, not all cost saving projects are equally effective in their delivery of the desired results. Most probably never live up to the initial expectations. Clearly, this is not the most motivating outcome for both management and project implementers alike, and is only bound to cause even more stress and friction within an organization.
But what distinguishes a successful cost-saving project from the next failed one? Has anyone ever nailed down a failsafe formula that delivers every time? Is there a tried and tested Holy Grail out there that all businesses should latch on to and model all their efforts after?
Unfortunately not, is probably a more likely answer.
Systems like kaizen and 5S, borrowed from the Japanese, have produced fairly good results for those who have tried it. But lifted from a foreign culture and originally tailored for that culture’s business mentality, their implementation has sometimes been “lost in translation” and produced less than the ideal outcomes.
Having come through a lot of these projects of late in my own organization, my observation has been that although structured systems and processes, such as those of the Japanese, can and do work in many situations, there is still a very important element that in the end determines whether a project succeeds or falls down, and that is all to do with people.
As cliché as it may sound, people and their total involvement in any organizational commitment is still the good old difference between success and failure in any organizational undertaking. Japanese or German, Asian or American, any process of change will only be as successful if the people working for it are committed for success to happen.
More on this next week.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, May 20, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/05/20/bus/batuhan.lost.in.translation.html)
Saturday, 13 May 2006
Need to know
In military organizations, the principle of “need to know basis” is widely operative. Soldiers and officers are told as little as possible of details of any plans or operations, and just enough to enable them to carry out a task as planned.
The primary consideration, of course, is security and secrecy. One way or another, word about an operation may reach the enemy and compromise its success. In recent times, this has become a very real threat with the increasing proliferation of information outlets like Internet blogs and chatrooms. So-called “military bloggers” have been known to have wittingly or unwittingly compromised the safety and security of military personnel by revealing details of what and where their colleagues were doing in the battlefield.
Another consideration is the minimization of dissension within the ranks.
“Ours is not to question why, Ours is but to do or die.” Military mantras like these exemplify what rigid organizations prefer in terms of how their personnel follow orders and commands—unquestioning obedience and loyalty.
Understandably, this is to be expected. Military operations involve not only the lives of soldiers and servicemen, but also the security and safety of whole communities and nations. Security, therefore, is paramount above all else, and that includes whether or not soldiers are actually 100 percent happy about being asked to do a certain job or not.
Most organizations operate like rigid military outfits. Everything seems to be clandestine and hush-hush, with only a select coterie of individuals being “in the know” about things. Employees are only informed of things that they “need to know” to be able to do their jobs. Their opinions are not solicited and they are not consulted at all even on matters that may have a direct impact on their jobs.
Sounds familiar about your own organization? Well, that’s because most are run in this fashion. Consultation down the ranks on major decision of significant impact to the business is not a commonplace practice, except in very few progressive companies. Usually, the chief executive officer only consults the senior management and his assistant, senior managers confide with their subordinates, and so on down the line.
As a result, decisions become a bit predictable, and lose their creativity and innovation. This is logical because they all come from the same group or groups of individuals always acting in concert.
Imagine if many others were involved in the process. Or, at the very least, if there was a way by which the ideas of many others can be incorporated in the decision making process. Would this not give more alternatives and, therefore, ensure more relevant and effective decisions to be taken?
There was a time when managers held a monopoly on business wisdom. In the olden days, employees did not have as much education and training as their bosses, who were therefore held in very high regard.
These days are past—the acquisition of knowledge is now a more level playing field. The increasing accessibility of fora like the Internet, improvement of general education and the increasing mobility of the workforce has meant that there is a lot of potential in any organization to gather innovative and creative ideas, if only we knew how to get them.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, May 13, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/05/13/bus/batuhan.need.to.know.html)
The primary consideration, of course, is security and secrecy. One way or another, word about an operation may reach the enemy and compromise its success. In recent times, this has become a very real threat with the increasing proliferation of information outlets like Internet blogs and chatrooms. So-called “military bloggers” have been known to have wittingly or unwittingly compromised the safety and security of military personnel by revealing details of what and where their colleagues were doing in the battlefield.
Another consideration is the minimization of dissension within the ranks.
“Ours is not to question why, Ours is but to do or die.” Military mantras like these exemplify what rigid organizations prefer in terms of how their personnel follow orders and commands—unquestioning obedience and loyalty.
Understandably, this is to be expected. Military operations involve not only the lives of soldiers and servicemen, but also the security and safety of whole communities and nations. Security, therefore, is paramount above all else, and that includes whether or not soldiers are actually 100 percent happy about being asked to do a certain job or not.
Most organizations operate like rigid military outfits. Everything seems to be clandestine and hush-hush, with only a select coterie of individuals being “in the know” about things. Employees are only informed of things that they “need to know” to be able to do their jobs. Their opinions are not solicited and they are not consulted at all even on matters that may have a direct impact on their jobs.
Sounds familiar about your own organization? Well, that’s because most are run in this fashion. Consultation down the ranks on major decision of significant impact to the business is not a commonplace practice, except in very few progressive companies. Usually, the chief executive officer only consults the senior management and his assistant, senior managers confide with their subordinates, and so on down the line.
As a result, decisions become a bit predictable, and lose their creativity and innovation. This is logical because they all come from the same group or groups of individuals always acting in concert.
Imagine if many others were involved in the process. Or, at the very least, if there was a way by which the ideas of many others can be incorporated in the decision making process. Would this not give more alternatives and, therefore, ensure more relevant and effective decisions to be taken?
There was a time when managers held a monopoly on business wisdom. In the olden days, employees did not have as much education and training as their bosses, who were therefore held in very high regard.
These days are past—the acquisition of knowledge is now a more level playing field. The increasing accessibility of fora like the Internet, improvement of general education and the increasing mobility of the workforce has meant that there is a lot of potential in any organization to gather innovative and creative ideas, if only we knew how to get them.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Saturday, May 13, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/05/13/bus/batuhan.need.to.know.html)
Saturday, 22 April 2006
Doing Better
In many organizations today, the biggest challenge is assimilating new ideas and practices, and making them work effectively.
So what’s the big deal, we may ask? Is this even a problem?
For individuals like ourselves, when we see something we think is better, we go ahead and do it. If we read in a newspaper or magazine article somewhere that says it is much cheaper and quicker to shop for certain items through the Internet, we go ahead and try it out for ourselves. And when we are satisfied that it is indeed the better way, we go ahead and do it.
Even within our families, there are usually no second thoughts about changing the way we do things. When mom goes around her neighborhood friends and finds out that in a certain supermarket, groceries are selling for less than where she currently shops, then she’s off to the new one on her next shopping trip.
So why can’t companies do as individuals and families do? Are they not anyway a collection of individuals, the same as a family? Why when they are presented with a better way of doing things do they still find it very difficult to change their old ways?
There are a number of reasons for this, but surprisingly enough, it is the fact that organizations are composed of individuals that makes change extremely difficult.
Say that again? We just said that as individuals, it is very easy for us to assimilate better ways of doing things. Why is it difficult then for an organization that contains many of “us” individuals to do the same?
Well, for a start, not all individuals have the same tastes and preferences. For every one that would switch supermarkets because of price, there is probably another switching the other way because the more expensive one is cleaner, friendlier and closer to their home.
For both individuals switching from one to the other, they have made the right choice, according to their own criteria. One was looking for economy, the other for convenience and accessibility. In their own assessment of their situation, both have won big time.
When those same two individuals work for, say the supply chain function of an organization, they may very well bring their same perceptions to influence their personal judgment; so one may look for suppliers based purely on pricing economies, and the other on service levels. One’s better way of doing things is not necessarily the other’s.
Multiply these individual preferences and selection criteria over so many individuals and you get a sense for just how complex the challenge becomes to let them all agree that things can be done better, and ensure that they go about improving them.
This will not happen without an effective process for doing so. Think of an instance where a subordinate may have a fantastic idea that his superior does not necessarily share. How on earth would the subordinate even contemplate making his idea known to the wider world without risking upsetting his boss?
What will probably end up happening is he goes along halfheartedly with his boss, knowing all along that if he had been invited to share his thoughts, things could have been better.
How then can a process like this be institutionalized and sustained in an organization?
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 22, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/04/22/bus/batuhan.doing.better.html)
So what’s the big deal, we may ask? Is this even a problem?
For individuals like ourselves, when we see something we think is better, we go ahead and do it. If we read in a newspaper or magazine article somewhere that says it is much cheaper and quicker to shop for certain items through the Internet, we go ahead and try it out for ourselves. And when we are satisfied that it is indeed the better way, we go ahead and do it.
Even within our families, there are usually no second thoughts about changing the way we do things. When mom goes around her neighborhood friends and finds out that in a certain supermarket, groceries are selling for less than where she currently shops, then she’s off to the new one on her next shopping trip.
So why can’t companies do as individuals and families do? Are they not anyway a collection of individuals, the same as a family? Why when they are presented with a better way of doing things do they still find it very difficult to change their old ways?
There are a number of reasons for this, but surprisingly enough, it is the fact that organizations are composed of individuals that makes change extremely difficult.
Say that again? We just said that as individuals, it is very easy for us to assimilate better ways of doing things. Why is it difficult then for an organization that contains many of “us” individuals to do the same?
Well, for a start, not all individuals have the same tastes and preferences. For every one that would switch supermarkets because of price, there is probably another switching the other way because the more expensive one is cleaner, friendlier and closer to their home.
For both individuals switching from one to the other, they have made the right choice, according to their own criteria. One was looking for economy, the other for convenience and accessibility. In their own assessment of their situation, both have won big time.
When those same two individuals work for, say the supply chain function of an organization, they may very well bring their same perceptions to influence their personal judgment; so one may look for suppliers based purely on pricing economies, and the other on service levels. One’s better way of doing things is not necessarily the other’s.
Multiply these individual preferences and selection criteria over so many individuals and you get a sense for just how complex the challenge becomes to let them all agree that things can be done better, and ensure that they go about improving them.
This will not happen without an effective process for doing so. Think of an instance where a subordinate may have a fantastic idea that his superior does not necessarily share. How on earth would the subordinate even contemplate making his idea known to the wider world without risking upsetting his boss?
What will probably end up happening is he goes along halfheartedly with his boss, knowing all along that if he had been invited to share his thoughts, things could have been better.
How then can a process like this be institutionalized and sustained in an organization?
Published in the Sun Star Daily, Saturday, April 22, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/04/22/bus/batuhan.doing.better.html)
Monday, 27 February 2006
38 years
THIS year marks the 38th year of the founding of the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), the Philippine-based school of management in the Asia Pacific. Throughout this time, AIM has produced leaders and visionaries in Asia who have made an indelible mark on their own societies, transforming them into global economic giants.
The institute has clearly cemented its reputation as being among the world’s elite. To date, it is one of the very few in Asia and in the rest of the world to belong to the elite company of top American and European business schools.
There is today not a major organization in the Asia Pacific region without an alumnus from AIM in a responsible management position.
And yet, throughout this time AIM may have had the least impact on where we would assume its presence would be felt the most, here in the land of its birth — the Philippines. Having said that, I would not attribute the failings of our economy singularly to the institute. In fact, what is probably fair to say is that without its major positive contributions to Philippine society, the latter would probably be in a much worse shape than it is at the moment.
But from the success of AIM to the failure of the Philippines — all in the same span of 38 years — where have we, as a country, gone wrong? Sure we can write off 18 of those years as a total waste, having spent all of them under the curse of a draconian dictatorship, but what of the other 20 that were under the liberties of free speech, free press and human rights for all? How have we managed to squander our chances under them as well?
Today, whenever I travel around the region, it is difficult not to feel just a little tinge of jealousy in seeing the progress our Asian neighbors have made ahead of ourselves. One of my direct reports is an Indonesian national who graduated from AIM some 10 years after me. The very first thing he asked me when we got to talking about our common experience was — what is happening to the Philippines?
Behind that one line of a question is a host of others that need asking — to our leaders in government, to the captains of our industry and to us as a people. Where have we been all this time when Malaysian rice fields were being transformed into the multimedia corridor that is now Cyber Jaya.
When Thailand was busy rebuilding its economy after its ignominious fall in 1997, where were our attentions turned? What are our educators doing turning out medical and health workers for export to foreign lands when our own people cannot even get decent medical attention?
The past 38 years -—while they have been kind to the fortunes of one of our esteemed institutions — have been cruel to our economy and our people. We can only learn from this past and use it to shape a hopefully better future.
Failing that, and 38 years from now, we would still be talking about what could have been.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Monday, February 27, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/02/27/bus/batuhan.38.years.html)
The institute has clearly cemented its reputation as being among the world’s elite. To date, it is one of the very few in Asia and in the rest of the world to belong to the elite company of top American and European business schools.
There is today not a major organization in the Asia Pacific region without an alumnus from AIM in a responsible management position.
And yet, throughout this time AIM may have had the least impact on where we would assume its presence would be felt the most, here in the land of its birth — the Philippines. Having said that, I would not attribute the failings of our economy singularly to the institute. In fact, what is probably fair to say is that without its major positive contributions to Philippine society, the latter would probably be in a much worse shape than it is at the moment.
But from the success of AIM to the failure of the Philippines — all in the same span of 38 years — where have we, as a country, gone wrong? Sure we can write off 18 of those years as a total waste, having spent all of them under the curse of a draconian dictatorship, but what of the other 20 that were under the liberties of free speech, free press and human rights for all? How have we managed to squander our chances under them as well?
Today, whenever I travel around the region, it is difficult not to feel just a little tinge of jealousy in seeing the progress our Asian neighbors have made ahead of ourselves. One of my direct reports is an Indonesian national who graduated from AIM some 10 years after me. The very first thing he asked me when we got to talking about our common experience was — what is happening to the Philippines?
Behind that one line of a question is a host of others that need asking — to our leaders in government, to the captains of our industry and to us as a people. Where have we been all this time when Malaysian rice fields were being transformed into the multimedia corridor that is now Cyber Jaya.
When Thailand was busy rebuilding its economy after its ignominious fall in 1997, where were our attentions turned? What are our educators doing turning out medical and health workers for export to foreign lands when our own people cannot even get decent medical attention?
The past 38 years -—while they have been kind to the fortunes of one of our esteemed institutions — have been cruel to our economy and our people. We can only learn from this past and use it to shape a hopefully better future.
Failing that, and 38 years from now, we would still be talking about what could have been.
Published in Sun Star Daily, Monday, February 27, 2006 (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/ceb/2006/02/27/bus/batuhan.38.years.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)