"The great myth is the manager as orchestra conductor. It's this idea of standing on a pedestal and you wave your baton and accounting comes in, and you wave it somewhere else and marketing chimes in with accounting, and they all sound very glorious. But management is more like orchestra conducting during rehearsals, when everything is going wrong."
Professor Henry Mintzberg ( 1939 - Present ), author of "The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning", "Managers, Not MBAs", winner of McKinsey Award for Best Article in Harvard Business Review
In reality, many studies have shown that those in management levels more often than not instead of "showing systematic, reflective planning" are more of "ants-like beings rushing from one activity to another with much discontinuity, brevity and variety, strongly oriented to action and dislike work associated with the reflective realm."
To be effective means to attain or reach one's objectives or goals.
It may entail 1) planning, 2) organising, 3) directing, 4) coordinating, 5) leading, 6) motivating, 7) controlling etc.
In many failings in modern society, could it be the "lack of effective strategic planning"?
Could it be "insufficient talents exist or emphasis placed in the reflective scope of planning work"?
In our nation building efforts in areas like population, economic growth, sustainability, is there a "grand strategy" or are our leaders mostly "attaining near term fruits but planting the seeds of future social and economic problems'?
Between 1997 to 2003, this little red dot arguably had three economic downturns namely in the period 1997-1998, 2000-2001 and 2003. What happened?
In 1984 NDR speech and also a 1990 keynote speech at one of the forums in NUS, former MM Lee talked at length about his leadership renewal, his impending "retirement" and the "handing over of the political baton" to the second generation leaders.
Between 1990 to 1996, under the leadership of the second generation leaders, a slew of generational and huge quantum changes in many policy areas were enacted such as Asset Enhancement programme, COE, ERP, huge ministerial salary increases and large annual bonuses. In the course of all these myriad inflationary policies, was there a "grand strategy" to steer the economy in the right direction?
As much as "Rome is not build in one day", the second generation leadership mostly until their assuming of pinnacle leadership in 1990 had about more than a decade of "understudy" from the 1970s onwards in the government before the retirement of many pioneer generation leaders such as Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee and former MM Lee from key positions between 1980 to 1990.
When current PM Lee took over in 2004, understandably the first priority was to "revive" the economy. Out of all the possible strategic directions and possibilities, PM Lee opted for the building of the integrated resorts as one of the key cornerstones of his "economic revival plan". This is a very serious and grave about turn in our nation building policy stance all these while especially former MM Lee's past assertion that "casinos will be built over his dead body" in this islet off the Malaysian Peninsula.
Fast forward to 2013, eight years after the casino plan was announced in 2005 and since then completed and in operation for the past 3 years, typical of the efficiencies and meticulousness of the renowned Singapore brand and swiftness in getting things done, Singapore may be reaping some of the near term rewards of this policy shift. Since 2005, land and property prices reversed their depressive downward trend experienced in the period 1997 to 2004 and began their upward unabated march culminating in two peaks in 2007/ 2008 and 2012/ early 2013 with in-between a 30% dip during the Global Financial Tsunami in 2009.
Going forward, what is the "game plan"? Or rather, what is the "grand strategy", if there is one? How to achieve sustainability? Singapore may have slipped into a course where long term benefits are "substituted" for near term gains "to pull the economy out of its doldrums" since 2004 onwards.
"My feeling about executive bonuses is that any candidate for a chief executive job who even raises the issue of bonuses should be dismissed out of hand."
Professor Henry Mintzberg ( 1939 - Present ), author of "The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning", "Managers, Not MBAs", winner of McKinsey Award for Best Article in Harvard Business Review
Having published and passed the PWP ( Population White Paper ) early this year 2013 and with that the relentless push to build up the infrastructure to meet the future population needs, again is there a "grand strategy" to take care of the "software" side of problems and issues in the social, economic and political realm? Or is it another "casino" case? Building near term gains but "planting the seeds of long term social and economic problems"?
Are nations built similar to the "anatomy of human beings"? If it is, are we now in middle age and experiencing the slew of impending natural health and illnesses issues and problems on route to eventual inevitable demise? Can our "aging" be slowed? Can our "problems" be mitigated? Can it help if more "long term, reflective approaches" are taken? Can it help if some sort of "grand strategy" is devised along near term and mid term economic planning? Was it not when they asked for huge salary increase and yearly bonuses, they were touted as "super talents"? Aren't the "super talents" being paid the highest political office holders salaries and bonuses world wide not able to have a "grand strategy" working side by side with short and mid term planning?
With their "super talents", aren't they capable of adopting a deliberate strategy approach and at the same time be versatile and flexible to keep a watch out for the need to change gear and adopt an "emergent strategy" when necessary or when situations call for it? Are these how the "super talents" are taught and educated at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for their expensive tax-payer funded Masters degrees in Public Policy/ Public Administration? Are they not supposed to be "proactive" in their policy approaches and problems solving than almost always on the "defensive and reactive" mode?
What could be the solution?
Perhaps adopting what are expounded in Geoffrey Chamberlain's theory of strategy ( published 2010 ) and Eduard Spranger's six values namely:
1) Theoretical: A passion to discover, systemize and analyze; a search for knowledge.
2) Utilitarian: A passion to gain a return on all investments involving time, money and resources.
3) Aesthetic: A passion to experience impressions of the world and achieve form and harmony in life; self-actualization.
4) Social: A passion to invest myself, my time, and my resources into helping others achieve their potential.
5) Individualistic: A passion to achieve position and to use that position to affect and influence others.
6) Traditional: A passion to seek out and pursue the highest meaning in life, in the divine or the ideal, and achieve a system for living.
may provide some answers in formulating a "grand strategy" alongside "deliberate" and "emergent" strategies that may one day immortalise this little red dot by transforming it eventually into the "Mecca of Modern Capitalism" in this current era.
Otherwise, as the Chinese saying goes, "不成功，便成仁".
Historically, how far can one kick the can down the road before there is no more road to kick the can? Are we fast approaching the dead end or are we in the middle of such a path and past and present leaders are just leaving the eventual consequences and problems to the future generations?
PSS
*The writer blogs at http://pro-sustainable-sg.blogspot.sg/