The last three weeks or so were quite exciting, judging from what I had read in the Straits Times as well as Sunday Times, with regard to the 'AWARE' leadership saga.
First, the "old timers" were knocked out of their leadership positions by "young Turks" with a seemingly hidden agenda. Then, the "old timers" fought back, & wrestled back their control from the "young Turks" after a showdown at Suntec City.
This saga reminds me of what global business consultant Gary Hamel (as well as Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who had mentioned it at the National Day 2000 Rally) had talked about in his book, 'Leading the Revolution: How to Thrive in Turbulent Times by Making Innovation a Way of Life ':
- insurgents vs incumbents;
& I like to quote from him:
"In the new industrial order, the battle lines don’t run between regions and countries. It's no longer Japan versus the USA versus the EU versus the developing world. Today, it’s the insurgents versus the incumbents, the revolutionaries versus the landed gentry . . . First the revolutionaries will take your markets and your customers . . . Next they’ll take your best employees . . . Finally, they’ll take your assets."
Amidst the seemingly negative religious connotations of the abrupt take-over by "feminist mentor"
Thio Su Mien's insurgents, & subsequently hotly-contested regaining of control by the incumbents, I reckon there are valuable lessons for all of us, at least from the strategic thinking perspective:
1) The "old timers" were obviously complacent. After some 24 years or so in leading their outfit, they probably got cosy & comfortable with their leadership positions, completely detached from what's was really happening out there.
To Senior Minister Lee
Kuan Yew, it's the lack of "realism": having one's feet firmly placed on the ground & feeling the pulse of what's really happening.
Sad to say, the "old timers" were acting like old elephants, very slow to dance, especially to change & renewal.
Worst still, they were insensitive to "rumblings" (read: "weak signals") in the
marketspace. First hints actually came about in the Forum pages.
2) In contrast, the "young Turks" were too arrogant.
[Actually, to me, "arrogance" is no different from "complacency", as both can spell big trouble, if left unchecked.]
To paraphrase the outgoing newly-elected President for only 11 days after the takeover bid: They acted like "stormtroopers".
They violated the first "rule of engagement" in any organisational leadership change: open communication.
If the insurgents had been more upfront about
their intentions, & exercise more restraint in their behind-the-scene machinations, probably the outcome might have turned out differently.
3) Both incumbents & insurgents neglected the fact we live in a larger world where everything is connected to everything
else.
On one hand, the incumbents were stuck in old ways of doing things, & got carried away by some of their public education programs.
On the other hand, the insurgents were apparently obsessed & pushy with their single-minded perspective, which embodied apparently lopsided fundamental beliefs. That irked a lot of other people too.
The '
AWARE' community is just a small group of people, but it exists in a larger society like Singapore with 4 million people of diverse aspirations & different beliefs.
DPM Teo Chee Hean got it right when he commented:
"I think there will always be differences in society; it's a question of whether we can deal with them in a sensible way, learn how to accept one another's differences & still work together for the good of this society. There are people in our society with different views & if . . . we push them too hard, there will be a push back from the other side. You are not going to resolve some of these differences because they are strongly held & you risk polarising society if you push too hard . . ."
4) It's a total surprise that '
AWARE' has existed for some 24 years & yet its membership before the takeover bid has stood at around300. Now,
'AWARE' has a swelling record membership of 3000.
Somewhere along the line, there is
definitely something wrong with their monitoring of the environment & feedback mechanism. Or maybe, the outfit did not have any monitoring &/or feedback system at all.
This is something to think about. A good monitoring & feedback system can serve readily as some sort of early warning system.
5) Today's issue of the
Straits Times has a special report on the ill-fated coup by offering 10 reasons why the
'AWARE' leadership grab failed. I would have expected the report to touch on why the "old timers" had lost their entrenched leadership - luckily for a short while - in the first place.
To me, the more intriguing issue is:
can one predict failure? can one conceive the notion of failure?
At this juncture, I like to single out a passage from
'The Online Citizen' which had reported on the recent seminar held at the National Museum Gallery Theatre, entitled
“Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising The Singapore Way”:
One of the distinguished speakers,
Kishore Mahbubani, Dean & Professor of the Lee
Kuan Yew School of Public Policy emphasized that Singapore must be able to conceive the notion of failure, so as to prevent the country degenerating.
This was something which former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr
Goh Keng Swee, had told him, after the PAP’s monopoly of Parliament was broken in 1981.
“As (Dr
Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure,” said Mr
Mahbubani.
This is naturally an important issue at the national leadership level.
Against the backdrop of the recent
'AWARE' saga, what I am more interested is its implications at the organisational & personal level:
- Can we, as an organisation, fail?
- Can I, as an individual, fail?
- If so, how can I leverage & thrive on it?
- what if my performance depended on the intensity & frequency of my failures?
- what if I learned that a key to thriving was to fail fast & intelligently?
Definitely, worth pondering!