marginally subversive

"I told you so!"

I am going to cut and paste this blog in its entirety - because I couldn't have written it any better.  All I can say is "This explains a lot!".

A New Power Principle?

Posted by: Jena McGregor on May 20

You may think it’s your boss who’s always the one messing things up. But according to new research in the journal Pyschological Science, people with lower-ranking titles are more likely to make errors than those with higher-ranking roles. That’s because, says Adam Galinsky, a study co-author and professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, the “executive functions” of the brain, or the gray-matter processes that override automatic responses, can be impaired when people are put in jobs with little power. In Galinsky’s study, which was co-authored by Pamela K. Smith, Nils B. Jostmann, and Wilco W. van Dijk, subjects who were randomly assigned to be subordinates had a harder time staying focused on goals than those who, by chance, were named to be managers.

The research isn’t the first Galinsky has done on the effects of power on performance. In another study, he had students sit down very close to electric fans blowing in their faces. Sixty-nine percent of those randomly assigned to be managers moved the fans, while just 42% of those named subordinates did. Galinsky believes such research helps confirm why employee “empowerment”—especially in health care, or high-risk factory jobs—should be much more than just lip service. Says Galinksy: “Lacking power impairs those parts of the brain that allow people to stay focused.”

I wouldn't really call it "power" though - it's "control" or the perception of the ability to make a difference and to control one's environment.  Once that is lost - all is gone.

Underutilizing the Young...

In a blog by Bronwyn Fryer, a question was posed: 

Do you overlook young people, or do you go out of your way to listen to them? If the latter, what are you learning from them, and how are you helping them?

A very interesting question - but frankly, I am more interested in how the "elders" respond. 

A few years ago - when I was 25 - I became one of the youngest country managers for a large network of communications planning companies in the world.  True - the operations that I handled were not as massive as my "peers" (I dared to call them peers back then) - I had a team of 10 with a business that is perhaps 15% the size of the biggest average-sized operations in the Asia Pacific network.

Whenever I took the stage to report on the status of the business of the office I was managing, everybody looked encouraging.  They had questions - and I had answers.  There was - I felt - mutual respect, in spite of my age.

But when I moved offices and countries, age became an issue.  In spite of the fact that I had 8 years of working experience in a field that I was truly passionate about, age always became an issue.  The first question that clients - and potential employers - would ask me was "How old are you?"  And I would answer, 27 - because that was the truth.

The second question - which I supposed was to placate them that I was not some inexperienced guy trying to tell them what to do - was one that somehow also irked me: "So how long have you been doing this job?"  And I would tell them "8 years". 

And the seemingly surprised response would be "You started working when you were 19?", as if that were an impossibility.

And I would go on and explain that "Yes, I did - I was accelerated twice, I was a merit scholar in my university - with advanced credits in most of my sciences and math courses, and in English and communications - and filled my university summer breaks with full-loads of electives so I can graduate early and well, learn more than I can and be prepared to face you and answer mundane questions that you are asking now."

(OK, I didn't verbalize the last couple of statements.)

But seriously, why can't older people trust younger people?  We may not have the experience - and we know that experience is a good teacher.  But history - as we all know - is not the best of teachers.  Sometimes, history repeats itself - but only because we let it repeat itself.

Young people - young managers like myself - can offer something - an untainted view of the world which to the untrained elder would mean "inexperience, unrealistic, too idealistic".

I am now 33 - and still, I am nowhere near the age of my direct sups.  I have been blessed to have worked with the best of bosses who listened to my advice and my counsel - and have formed partnerships that resulted to new business ventures that resulted to better margins, better profits, better processes, better workplaces.

I am still young - and I still have a lot to offer.

Just ask me.

Because if you don't ask me, I won't offer it. 

There's only so much resistance - a resistance that is borne out of the perception that I am "too young to understand" - that I can take.

Ask me for advice - for my thoughts - for what I think the world will be ten, twenty, thirty years from now.

I just might give you something to inspire you - if you'd only ask.

Why Gen-X'ers are not feeling the love...

I am a 30something gen-x'er.  I entered the workplace when the world was so excited about the internet - and computers and Windows.  Then the tech-boom  - and the subsequent bubble - came.  Suddenly, things were not so good as they were supposed to be.

Gen-X'ers I believe are far more controlling - far more independent and far more of a gamesman and a gameswoman than the "corporate, yes men and women" that the boomers were.  We challenged the status quo - asked questions - and never really got answers.

Some of us had given up - and were assimilated by the big companies and borgs.  Some of us are still struggling with the challenges of being independent.  Some of us are still straddling between being our own person - and a corporate executive Monday to Friday - that sometimes we are scared of change - and yet clamor for change.

And the balance - that darn balance between work and personal life - is still out there somewhere.

Argh.

In this article from Tammy Erickson, there are ten reasons why Gen-X'ers are not entirely feeling the love - in spite of companies needing our expertise.

One thing that Erickson does not mention - that I think should be there in the list of reasons why Gen-X'ers are not feeling the love - is because we're too fed up with hypocrisy.  It's no fault of the companies - it is perhaps the result of the system that we are in.

We hear of companies that are saying "our number one resource is our people - and our employees are our talent" - to the point that they set up talent management divisions, team-building and skill-enhancing projects, and on-job/classroom style training.

Only to be discarded and disregarded at the lower levels of the management rung.

Let's be honest: Gen-X'ers wanted to change the world.  We wanted the world to be a different place from our parents.  When Gen-X'ers came to be, we were on the verge of a technological and sociological mindshift - that suddenly stopped and we all stumbled.

We still want to change the world - but we've been stymied and and we've seen through the facade and the hyprocrisy of companies that say "we value you" - words that do not get translated to real actions and policies that affect us personally.

We've dreamt so much of a better world - and we've been disillusioned once.  We've tried to straddle several aspects of our lives - hoping that one of these - or ALL of these - will coalesce into one big whole that will be different from the lives that our parents and older siblings have led.

But still, we're not being heard.

Come on.  Give us some credit.

And to my fellow Gen-X'ers... it still is not over.  There is still an opportunity to change the world - and make it all different for us and our families.  We may not be the most tech-savvy and most digitally-savvy generation there is (hey, boomers don't even know how to program their VCRs and have given up; at least we tried - and we kept on trying until we got it right).  But we surely have the guts to get through this again.

We've gone through a lot.  And we can go through more.  A lot more.

Media Planning and Social Responsibility

This is something that I have been thinking about since I left the agency world and started working as a one-man sales support team for Southeast Asia.

(I had a great deal of time on my hands... Well, something that somebody - and I cannot remember who - said is the birthplace of either inspiration or evil thoughts. Fortunately for me, it is more of the former than the latter.)

The thought was simple: We spend so much money (OK, invest, as strat planners are won't to say) in media plans to advertise products. We come up with a lot of concepts to sell - we dreamed up GRPs, reach, frequency, recency, engagement, attention-planning, disruption, affinity targeting, and other theoretical frameworks to get it right - and well, to get clients to spend.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is evolving.

And I am not talking about things like digital media being more massive - and people are paying less attention and what-not... Those are given: people are just regressing to what is natural. (OK, that's for another post... later...)

The rest of the world is suffering: perhaps not in our immediate world, but in the bigger world. The gap between the top 10% households and the bottom 20% households in most countries is widening. The gap between the richest nations and the poorest nations is also widening.

And here we are, investing (or spending) money for client brands that perhaps consumers already know about - and may already care about.

Here's my point - after much digression: As media planners (and at heart, I am still one media planner - no matter what and how others think of media planners, I am still proud to have been and BE one), we actually have a lot of responsibilities.

And it's about time that we rise up to the occasion and take the risk.

I know this is about work. And work and Facebook don't seem to mix.

But most of my media planning and client-friends are in Facebook, I can't help but use this medium. My main point is simple:

If we can treat client investments in media planning/advertising to be more efficient, that in and of itself saves them enough - if not a lot of - money to use for the betterment of the world.

Think of the possibilities: Coke, for example (and I am thinking off the top of my head here - and I love Coke One!) - spends millions of dollars each year advertising their brand and their promotions.

If the media planners of Coke were able to make their investments in advertising more efficient - delivering the same amount sales at the a lower cost by maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks - wouldn't that be great? Let's say Coke in one country spends about 10Mln USD - and we are able to drive efficiencies (real efficiencies!) by 1% in addition to their demanded efficiencies, that's 10'000USD worth of savings. 10'000USD that they can either spend again - or 10'000USD that they can inject into their corporate social responsibility projects. Say to help the people in Burma or in China or in Darfur.

To get there, I think, there is a need for us to change mindsets. We have to think big. We have to be big. We have to be big in front of clients. We have to drive them to change their mindsets.

And if you're a client reading this - just think: Accountable media solutions + real savings that you can donate to an institution that would make the world a better place + "pogi-/gwapo-/brownie" points for you and your company.

Just think for a while.

(No, I have not become an Opus Dei - but I am certainly starting to believe that our work - whatever it is - is our way of doing God's Work - however you believe Her/Him to be.)

There's a lot to be done - but I think we can do something whilst doing our work.

Efficient media plans? Sure. Discounts? Sure. Additional value? Sure. But now, let's look for a purpose for all those. Perhaps, aiming to create efficient media plans, or tonnes of discounts or free spots - for the sake of changing the world is a lot better and bigger than simply getting that yearend "positive points" in the client evaluation sheet.

Risk in Media Planning

If you sit through a media planning meeting between a planner and a client, you'd probably hear terms such as GRPs, reach and frequency, CPRPs, effective frequency, and recency. If you sit in more sophisticated meetings, you'd probably hear of words such as "optimized media plan".

However, it is very rare for media planners to talk about risk management.

Which is quite surprising.

GRPs - ratings, TARPs, rating points - all cost money. And in these times of "very fickle-minded audiences", variability in ratings are more pronounced than ever before.

In spite of these phenomena, media planners are still preparing plans based on pre-set and predefined GRP goals and CPRP ceilings. They sometimes use sophisticated, individual-/respondent-level data to come up with "optimized" media plans.

However, such optimization techniques do not take into consideration "risks" - that is, the possibility of the media plan not delivering its goals.

I believe that the time has come for media planners to take into account the variability - and the risks - that come with their media plans.

I know that it is a tall order - but as audiences are being exposed to more and more options within a medium and within a timeblock, it is time for media planners to take into account risks and variability. It is only when we start thinking of risks and variability - and measure them and take them into account in a media plan - can we truly talk about ROI.

I have prepared a simple program that you could probably use as a starting point for thinking through a "risk management" approach in media plans. Of course, I will not claim to be an expert myself in risk-management; nor will I declare that the attached file is something that solves the problems of risk-management in media planning.

However, the attached could be a starting point - however simple it may be.

Here is a description of the file.

The challenge is simple: There are 10 programs that a media planner must consider buying. Each has a corresponding CPRP (cost per rating point). Here's the clincher, however: the average ratings of each of the programs are somewhere around 12.5. There is little difference across the 10 programs in terms of ratings - the media planner can only decide based on costs.

My proposition is simple: There is an opportunity to go beyond costs. In fact, there is a need to go beyond costs.

It is when things seem to be similar that we need to apply concepts of risk management into the media planning process.

To demonstrate, look at the attached file (after you've downloaded it and opened it in Excel 2000 or later). Enter any inputs that you'd like to test out in the blue cells. And then run SOLVER. It has been preset in the file.

The goal of SOLVER is to minimize what I call the "Risk Factor" whilst meeting the constraints that are defined by the media planner (e.g., the plan should be within budget; there is a minimum amount of GRPs that need to be achieved; there are minimum/maximum shares per program).

The Risk Factor is a simple measure - it is based on the concepts of variance, a common measure of risk and variability in the world of Finance.

This - I hope - will inspire others to take into account risk measures in the same way that they look at optimized GRPs, reach, and frequency. The time for risk management concepts to be incorporated in media planning, I strongly believe, has come.

And media planners should rise up to the occasion - specially now that clients are faced with challenges that they have never encountered before.

for old friends...

An old friend of mine - from high school - managed to track me down through this blog.  So for old friends who will stumble upon this blog of mine... this one's for y'all.  Anya!  Adulaamin...  tawagan dak, oen?

 

"You're downgraded!"

A few months ago, I was in a quandary - with all the questions converging on only one theme:  Do I want to be a big fish in a small pond or be a small fish in a big, big ocean?

Egged on by something - perhaps, pride and the want to experiment - I tried to be a small fish in a big, vast ocean.  Faced with prospects of growth - financially, personally, and intellectually - I dove in.

Then I realized - 6 months on - that I wasn't ready.

The big ocean is filled with currents - waves that cause boats to move and sway, and sometimes capsize - and strong undercurrents that are far stronger than the waves on the surface of the stormy sea.

I decided that I was a small fish - I had no control over my destiny and that I was transformed from a manager of managers to a mere support player whose main remit was well, change colors in a PowerPoint presentation and extract numbers and calculate percentage growth rates from a simple spreadsheet.

The day ended with me feeling not having accomplished anything - and not having grown an inch.  And that is in spite of having crossed out all the things that are listed on my so-called "treadmill". 

True, I had the chance - for the first time in my life - to come home at 6pm and see the sunset from my apartment (perched on top of a hill, overlooking the skyline of Singapore).  I had - for the first time in my life - the luxury of walking leisurely towards my gym appointments - instead of getting warmed up whilst running to catch the train and avoid being penalized by my gym trainer.

I know a lot of people would want to trade places with me - and yes, that there are a million people - girls and boys - who would kill for this kind of job.

But I needed a reason.

I needed to be imbued with passion - with the feeling that when I lay myself at the end of the day on my bed, I had something done.  Something that is far bigger than me.  Something that could potentially change the world.  Something that could have expanded my mind - a little bit.

I am passionate - but what I have learned is that it takes a little bit to 'light my fire'.  Once lit and kindled, it gives off such warmth, such glow...  Hoping that others, too, could be inspired and be lit and their fires kindled.

And that was it: that was why I threw in the towel and surrendered.

Because I wanted to be a part of something bigger - something that could potentially change the world - something that could change how people see things and relate to others and other things - something that could potentially be bigger and great and well, hope-filled.

BusinessWeek's latest issue had described this as a variation of the "phantom limb syndrome".  Dr. Jerry Sulkowicz says this in his latest column:

Your experience sounds like a variation on "phantom limb syndrome," in which a person receives signals from a limb that's no longer there. Clinging to the phantom executive inside you, I suspect, is your way of dealing with the loss of ... your authority. The best cure, of course, is a new and better position, but that may take a while.

He offers this advice:

How to cope in the interim? The strong emotions you're feeling now will fade in time, but only if you don't make matters worse by punishing yourself. You've suffered a blow, but that doesn't mean you have to lose your self-respect or your sense of who you are. In my experience advising CEOs who have lost their jobs, such feelings (including a sense of humiliation) are frequently self-imposed.

And he further adds that:

Satisfying work, like a satisfying life, is rarely achieved through a straight, upward climb.

True.

But to satisfy one's life, one must satisfy the inner voice - that voice that is calling from within when silence surrounds and the world is quiet.

One of my former bosses - KT - taught me a very valuable lesson that until now I carry with me: "Leaders are not defined by their position or their titles; they are defined by the way they serve other people.  Christ-like leadership - service-based leadership.  Making other people shine by shining your own light."

Photo Credits:  From JML at this site.  Photo is governed by a Creative Commons License.

And yes.  That's what I want to do.

Serving leaders.  Leaders who lead in spite of who they are in the organizational chart ("Employee Number XXX156 from Cost Center XXX123").  Leaders who let their light shine and inspire others to also shine that others around them may also shine.  Leaders who deserve respect - from others who she/he also respects.  Leaders who inspire others - who in turn inspire her/him.

But never a slave.  Never.

I guess - in spite of my being a part of the capitalistic, dog-eat-dog world that characterizes the world that I live in - I still am an idealist.  And that I have never let go of the ideals that my family, my schools, my university and philosophy professors have taught me:  Be men and women for others - by living simply that others may simply live.

A post that needs to be written...

This is a post that needs to be written.  It is not for anyone - or for any purpose.  It just had to be written.  And to whoever owns this video or claims ownership of it - this is no longer yours alone.  It is the world's.  And it lives in those who believe that every day is the day.  That every moment is the moment.

exit interviews

in the span of 13 years of working (i am still an adolescent by industry standards), i have only had one exit interview. 

and that first and only one was done after leaving a company-network that i have been with for 8 years - from 1999 to 2007.  the entire purpose was to "find out what went wrong and what the company could have done better to retain 'talents' such as me".

it was an interesting, candid interview.

but up to now, i wasn't sure how it benefited me.

surely, it made a little bit of a change in my perception of the company i was leaving - a feeling of "at least they cared to listen to my stories - finally!"

but that was the main point:  "finally".

oh well.

i am scheduled to do another one.

will i still be as candid as the last one?  well, it all depends on the questions that will be asked.  (oh, at least the HR person now knows who I am now after months of passing by me in the hallway without saying hello or hi or simply acknowledging my presence.)

(sourgrapes?  hahaha.)

seriously, what is HR for?  we've talked of talent management - businessweek talks of the global talent crunch.  harvard business review talks of leaders' one ultimate goal: retain and deeply engage talent and encourage them to realize that these talents can be bigger than they are.

these days, i see HR as something that tries to get people to adhere to certain procedures - or else.  (the request for my exit interview was also stated along the same lines:  "as part of you obtaining your clearance to leave the company (and ultimately getting your salary: I added that), you need to do an exit interview" - which translates to "well, frankly, I don't want to sit down with you to do an interview since you're leaving anyway but it's the process... so let's get it on..."

having been a psych student with some exposures on Organizational Development and Organizational Behavior - and having conducted studies on Attitudinal Shifts and Tech Adoption Models in organizational settings, I am still trying to look for that great HR person.  someone who really take to heart what human resources management is all about - people management.  holistic people management. warts and all.

and oh.  greeting them once in a while when you cross paths in the narrow hallways in the office.

haha.

"i demand the right to change my mind"

A friend commented that I change my mind so quickly - that sometimes it is quite difficult for him to stay abreast with my choices. 

My rationale - which he never bought - was "Well, things change... and situations change.  When situations change, the parameters to a decision also change.  And the decision initially arrived at could well be shelved in favor of a new one - perhaps a refurbishment of a previous decision or an entirely new option altogether". 

He never bought it. 

He thinks that I am just too fickle-minded.

I say "No.  I know what I want - and that I will not lose.  What changes are the paths that I take to getting where I want to be and what I want to do."

Still, no positive response.

Having exhausted all that I could think of to justify my "changeable mind", I sent him a short note:  "I reserve the right to change my mind as and when I see fit."

As far as I am concerned, that's the end of the argument.

when a door closes...

it remains closed until you dare to open another one.

One of the things that I have learned in life is that one can never rest on one's achievements - and failures.  One has to continue evolving, learning, and assimilating new things. 

When one has come to the point of smugness to say "I know all - and don't need to learn anything else", then that's when one congeals - hardened with cynicism or with complacency.

Glorified Messengers?

My stockbroker is driving me nuts.  He's a nice guy - and means well.  And don't get me wrong:  he has my best interests at heart.  (At least, I think so.)

But he sends me 20 emails every day with reports cut and pasted from other people's reports, with PDF attachments that are 20 pages long about countries and companies and markets that I am not interested in.  (I have my own investment strategy - and no, I am not interested in some oil company in Bulgaria that will be the next big thing in the world.)

Sometimes, advertising media are just like mere glorified messengers.  The 'traditional' meaning of the word 'medium' comes to mind:  "it is through which a message is delivered".  But that is already changing.  It is no longer just the aether through which messages are sent and received.  It is becoming - or it has become - a part of the message, a consideration of both the sender and the receiver in trusting the message, and perhaps, a medium of real, two-way interactive communication.

The days of glorified messengers are over.

Search versus Content?

The new internet has ushered in a new age of content-creation, where audiences no longer are just mere receivers of information and of content:  they themselves are content-creators - and they are no longer passive audiences whose entertainment are determined by others.

Blogs have exploded.  Video and audio content are also exploding.

So is this finally the end of the 'search versus content' debate, with 'content' winning?

Well, I actually think that the more 'content' there is, the more search is important. 

I think that Google's vision (if I recall it correctly) is correct: To manage the world's information.

There seems to be no dissonance between search and content - and neither can be effective without the other.

I think of this as a situation that is analogous to recall, memory, and forgetting:  It's not so much that we cannot remember something - it's just that we had problems storing and recalling memories.  That's exactly what search does - it allows us to store and recall memories ('content') effectively.

Google has got its search product right.  Yahoo and Microsoft are also hot on their heels - and I think that with these three battling it out for supremacy in the world of search - or perhaps, more rightly, "information management and retrieval" - we will only see better results i the future.

Now with regard to content:  That's an entirely different story altogether - although related to search, I think that only a few web services have gotten it right.

A few that I think are getting it (based on my own personal experience) would include BusinessWeek.Com, Yahoo's Finance Pages, Economist.Com, Wired.Com (both online and off), and to a certain extent, the non-US CNN.Com (although I wish they would be more deep in their treatment of news).  BBC also is getting it right - and their wide range of offerings are turning me into a loyal follower.