marginally subversive

I took a major, bold step last week:  Our big-boss, the holding-company CEO, wrote a memo addressed to all the staff of the company, highlighting the achievements of the company in the past few months, the challenges that lie ahead, and why our stock price is so down.  (I think it now is under-5USD.)  I responded and told him of my views of the year ahead.

Photo thanks to DWQ Online on Flickr.Com

I emailed back and said that "Sure, 2009 is going to be a challenge of a year - and who knows what's going to happen?  But there are opportunities still in 2009 and that we should use these opportunities to strengthen ourselves and look ahead to 2010."

I also said that I believed that our efforts from 2000 till now have positioned us to come out stronger should the US markets become even far more regulated - and that we are in a position to actually come out real strong.

(I checked the analyst's estimates for the next year: P/E is at 8.34 - which is comparable to the competitors, and PEG Ratio is 0.55, versus the industry's 0.83 - which I thought was good.  These figures were as of 23rd November.  Here's the link, should you be interested.)

But more than that, I think that the company is actually on the right track: we have the right people in place (not that I have met all of them - I am still stuck in middle management... - but at least the people in most of the countries that I deal with, I have a great trust in).

Which brings me to what Seth Godin said in one of his blog entries:

"Just doing my job".  What a bogus excuse.

If you take a job, you've bought into what the company does. You're responsible.

If you work for a company headed off a cliff, hey, you're going too. The fact that you're just doing your job doesn't make unemployment any better. And if the company is hurting people or the world you operate in, it doesn't matter who told you to do it, you still did it.

Seth Godin went on and said:

It's not just your job. It's a big part of your life. And you're way smarter than you're giving yourself credit for. Speak up, change things or get out. Whining later is a low-return strategy.

I like what he said.  Again, I agree with Mr. Godin:  If you accepted a job in a company, it's become your responsibility.  No one asked you to be a part of the company you're in - and even if you feel victimized by the environ, it was still your choice to be a part of that company.  Get over it.

Make yourself heard.  Or be the change - as perhaps, Mr. Obama would say - you want to be

Or get out.

Simple.

Oh well.

(Oh - and I got a response from the CEO!  A pleasant surprise - I guess I thought I would be going into the 'junk email bin' - but it got read.  And I got a response.  And a "thank-you".  Ahh.  Little pleasures.)

late-bloomers and prodigies

Malcolm Gladwell writes about late-bloomers and prodigies in this New Yorker article.  He has an interesting take on how culture has shaped us to somehow be surprised by child prodigies - geniuses who seem to have an inborn talent to do something remarkably - and not so much by people who 'bloom into their newly-found geniuses within them later' in life.

I consider myself a late-bloomer in a lot of aspects.  I was forced at 15 to make a choice on what to take on at the Ateneo de Manila.  I was torn - what did I know about medicine, or being an engineer, or being an architect or a biologist? - and I was supposed to do this at 15?

That was how the educational system in the Philippines worked: at 15 - whilst in your senior (or junior) year in high school, you'd be required to declare what you wanted to study in the university.

Isn't it a bit too young?

Anyway, I ended up with computing sciences - then psychology - then a few more pre-med units.  But I guess the point really is "you're asking a 15year-old me to make a life-changing decision?"

Reading this article about late-bloomers, I can relate: it's only later in life (well, now...) that I have rediscovered my passion for for painting and sketching and doodling.  I remember that I used to draw a lot when I was in grade school - I drew at the back of my notebooks during long, boring lectures.  I even tried to do my own superhero comic-book.  In high school, I did pretty well in drafting class - and did pretty good in all those "draw this electrical circuit with this bulb and make sure that you have measured them correctly".

Then university came.

And there were books.  Lots of books.  Lots of readings.  Lots of numbers.  Lots of questions.

And doddling and sketching and painting became a luxury.

Until today.

I have just started painting.  I bought myself a 200-dollar oil painting kit - with two brushes, linseed oil, and turpentine.  I bought two canvasses - and ended up doing a pretty good start on one of them last night.

But there was this nagging feeling - someting at the back of my mind: "Am I really going to finish this?  Will the drawing really be good?  Will it be something worth hanging on the wall - or will it end up, like most of my other projects, in the bin?"

Then Malcolm Gladwell offers this snippet from a researcher, David Galenson from the University of Chicago:

But late bloomers, Galenson says, tend to work the other way around. Their approach is experimental (as opposed to young geniuses, who tend to be conceptual). “Their goals are imprecise, so their procedure is tentative and incremental,” Galenson writes in “Old Masters and Young Geniuses,” and he goes on:

The imprecision of their goals means that these artists rarely feel they have succeeded, and their careers are consequently often dominated by the pursuit of a single objective. These artists repeat themselves, painting the same subject many times, and gradually changing its treatment in an experimental process of trial and error. Each work leads to the next, and none is generally privileged over others, so experimental painters rarely make specific preparatory sketches or plans for a painting. They consider the production of a painting as a process of searching, in which they aim to discover the image in the course of making it; they typically believe that learning is a more important goal than making finished paintings. Experimental artists build their skills gradually over the course of their careers, improving their work slowly over long periods. These artists are perfectionists and are typically plagued by frustration at their inability to achieve their goal. 

Where Picasso wanted to find, not search, Cézanne said the opposite: “I seek in painting.”

(Emphases mine.)

It sounded really... hmm, familiar.

But I guess that's how it works: tainted by pre-judgments - directly or indirectly said, or influenced by existing notions of what a good job and future is and what is not by others around us, late-bloomers (and I am not calling myself a late-bloomer just yet...) tend to build things slowly - and look at things critically.

With tainted, prejudging eyes.

Uncertainties within one's self exist - and questions abound: "What if I discover that I am not good enough in painting - and that my dad or my mom was right: had I chosen to do painting in college, I would have ended up penniless?"

Hmm.

As I pick up my brushes, the pallette, a tube of white, and of red (I still don't know if it is called red, indeed), I really don't care.

Perhaps, I was not meant to paint - and make a living out of painting.  And that is fine.  The questions and the uncertainties that I have learned throughout the years of dealing with sharks (and dolphins and fishes and crabs and shrimps) in the corporate world will still surely be there.  But what the heck. 

It's for me this time 'round.

I am painting for me.

Not to earn money.  Not to earn a living.

But to try it out.  And as Galenson said - to experiment.  And experience.

Besides, as Gladwell points out,

Late bloomers’ stories are invariably love stories, and this may be why we have such difficulty with them.

Leadership is about Quiet Strength

I have written about quiet strength and leadership earlier.  And I still stand by it:  Being a leader means being a quiet pillar of strength that others can build on.

It's not about a position.  It's not about being looked up to for advice.  It's not about being able to make decisions for others.  It's about empowering others to think for themselves and make decisions on their own.

Vineet Ayar, CEO of HCL Technologies, wrote this on the HBR blogs:

Unlike leadership in the command and control era, leaders today lead not from the front, but are the quiet strength behind their people. To go just a step beyond Ken Blanchard's four dimensions of leadership -- the head, the hands, the heart and the habits - we might need to add a few more dimensions: listening, learning and letting go! (Emphases mine)

He further writes that "...no matter where you look, leaders assume far greater relevance as allies and co-innovators than as a mentor or guide."

Leaders inspire - they do not instill fear.  Leaders listen - they don't talk.  Leaders manage processes - they empower people.  Leaders understand - they do not impose their "understanding" and comprehension and expertise on others.  Leaders question because they want real answers - not because they want to hear the answers they have in their heads repeated to them.  Leaders ask real questions that matter - because they are prepared to hear the real answers, not because they want to validate the truths they hold to be true within them.  Leaders play the "politics" because it empowers their people - not because playing consolidates power with themselves.  Leaders follow-through on their words and their intentions - they realize their intentions by being focused on what needs to be done and what gets done and what does not.  Leaders are intentional - they can change minds, but they are intentional.  They are visionary - but are also on-the-ground.  They are on-the-ground, but they trust their people enough to deliver.  And when their people don't, they are there to empower.

More than ever, we need leaders.

marginally subversive thought of the day (3): on the choice that we have to be happy - and fulfilled...

And this is inspiring.

 

On Networking, Schmoozing, and Building "Street Creds"

I am perhaps the worst "networker" around.  An introvert - bordering on being a hermit, I have been one who has had to make an effort to socialize.  I am - what you may call - a "learned, really-trying-hard extrovert".

Through the course of my career, I have learned the value of networking - not just schmoozing part, but perhaps more importantly, building a network of people who trust, believe, and are confident in me and my capabilities.

My ex-boss, KT, calls this - in one of our recent conversations - "spreading seeds of goodwill and excellence".  I couldn't have defined it better.  Across time, you'd see these seeds blooming into plants.

I am heeding the advice of Jeremiah Owyang and cutting/pasting *shamelessly* what he has to say about the art and the science (I think it is a science - there is a structure, there needs to be a structure...) to networking.

Thanks, Mr. Owyang.

=================

Here’s a few things I’ve learned, and hope you intake, invest, and pass on:

1) You’re always looking for the next opportunity, simply shutting down what else is in the market is fool hearted. It doesn’t mean you need to jump ship before 1 month, or 1 year, but it means you should be talking to recruiters, companies, and hiring managers to see what next skills are needed now, and in the future. This will actually help your current employer, as you continue to skill up, take on new projects, as they invest in you. Remember, even if you work for someone else, you are a company of one.

2) Those who ignore the party/conversation/network when they are content and decide to drop in when they need the network may not succeed. It’s pretty easy to spot those that are just joining the network purely to take –not to give. Therefore, be part of the party/conversation/network before you need anything from anyone. Start now, and continue to build relationships by giving now: share knowledge, help others, and become a trusted node and connector, not just an outlying ‘dot’ of a comet that swings in every 4 years or so.

View Original Article

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Career, Jeremiah Owyang, Networking, Networking Strategies, Career-building, Growing, Personal Growth

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.

Seen on a shirt @ Adam Road Food Center

I can work for money - but that would be boring.

Not sure if I agree... but I am also not sure if I disagree.  Hmm.  Neutral?

Persistence

Seth Godin's entry today is very timely - at least for me.  Mr. Godin never fails to amaze me in ensnaring things that are floating in my mind.  (No, I will not even equate myself with Mr. Godin - there's just a sense of "vibrational compatibility" - a resonance, I guess.)

In his latest entry

Remarkable visions and genuine insight are always met with resistance. And when you start to make progress, your efforts are met with even more resistance. Products, services, career paths... whatever it is, the forces for mediocrity will align to stop you, forgiving no errors and never backing down until it's over.

If it were any other way, it would be easy. And if it were any other way, everyone would do it and your work would ultimately be devalued. The yin and yang are clear: without people pushing against your quest to do something worth talking about, it's unlikely it would be worth the journey. Persist.

I like the last word he wrote.  Persist.

Against mediocrity.  Against "it's good enough".  Against "no one will know and notice".  Against "where's the shortcut".  Against the dark forces that cut squares.

My personal guiding principle - borrowed from my former university - is Arete.  Excellence. Virtue.

And that is what's driving me.

Mass x Acceleration x Distance = Potentials

The Devil Wears Prada and the Stock Market

My friends are probably going to sigh yet again because for some reason, I am writing about  The Devil Wears Prada yet again.  Well, I honestly think that there is some "wisdom" (OK, wisdom is too big a word) in the movie that could potentially be applied to the changing sentiments of Wall Street.

These are lines from the movie's 'devil' played by Meryl Streep:

You can see beyond what people want, and what they need and you can choose for yourself.

Guess what I think:  I think that those who are going to survive the downtrends in the global markets are those who will be able to see what people want, what they need, what their short-term and long-term fears are, what their aspirations are, what drives them and what disappoints them.

And choose.

The market is supposedly rational.  The movements of Wall Street and of other exchanges around the world are supposedly rational.  We are supposedly trading in a rational world.

But we're not trading in a rational world.

A rational world would be one that allowed everyone - every stakeholder - access to perfect and full information.

One could argue that the internet has allowed access to more information - and that is true.  As I type this, I can the ticker of the NYSE go up and down on my screen.  I also see a stream of news coming in.

Surely, there is more information available - timely information.

But perfect and 'full' information?  I don't think they are.

Now more than ever, corporate people - being people - are more wary about what they say and do because it could spread like wildfire thanks to the internet.

 

So who will profit from this mess?

Those who can see into the fears, dreams, aspirations, motivations, drivers, dampeners, souls, and hearts of investors - and choose and play.