The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| Not fresh grads anymore, are we? Posted: 02 Jun 2013 04:18 PM PDT
JUNE 3 — "Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder." — Laurence J. Peter Remember when you and I were part of the "fresh grad" generation? Walking through the university gates and into the working world was tough. We got our first jobs and we had to learn everything from zero. Paper qualifications only barely got us through that office door. Everything that came our way felt so challenging because we were blank slates. Sometimes things felt impossible, because we constantly needed to meet quality expectations despite feeling our way in the dark most of the time. We also had to learn a whole new lifestyle — the working lifestyle. There are the hours, the responsibilities, the bills, even the consequences when you screw up. Life got more complicated. People say our student years are the honeymoon years. We understood that, finally. Then time passed, a few years went by. Things got better. The work that we used to struggle with became easier to manage, even if still time-consuming. What used to give us headaches became routine. Our bosses no longer had to hold our hands through everything. We even started feeling competent at what we do. It was like we finally figured it out and finally had that feeling of control over our work and tasks. That feeling of competency probably came about the same time that we realised — with a mix of horror and amusement — that our newest colleagues are three, four or even five years younger than we are. From being the rookie of the office, you found yourself maybe helping them out, giving pointers, dishing out tips you yourself received just a few years ago. This stage of our career is dangerous. We are no longer the "fresh grad." Instead we feel competent and indeed maybe are to some degree at what we do. Sometimes that glare of competency blinds us into thinking that we're more than that — we think we're good. Really good. And therein lies the danger. We're not totally clueless anymore, but we're not experts yet. We're somewhere in between, but thinking we're actually good. Once we think we're good, it's hard for us to ask ourselves honestly: how good am I, really? Maybe we are competent, but at what level? If being able to kick a ball in any one of the major wind directions qualifies as competent, then anyone who can swing their foot and connect with a static ball is a competent ball kicker. Can that compare with Paul Scholes' level of competency who reportedly is able to accurately hit a man with a ball kicked as far as 36 metres away? It's about context. At this stage we sometimes forget that we're still measuring ourselves based on the same standards we set when we just started working. That gives us the illusion of excellence when in fact we're still mediocre. We don't realise we're mediocre because we're comparing ourselves to the beginners of our industry when we should instead be looking at the leaders. It's an easy trap to fall into, because we all want to feel like we've reached the promised land at some point. Like we made it. Maybe some of us don't even care — just having a job IS the "promised land" to some. But for the rest of us who want to excel truly, it's important to stay in the right context whenever we evaluate how far we have progressed. So challenge ourselves. If work becomes easy, find that extra level of excellence to strive for. Look to our bosses and industry experts and really understand how good they are. The realisation of how far behind we really are compared to the best of the best in our industries is both humbling and invaluable. At the end of the day, personal growth is a lifelong process. How good we are at what we do is always relative to who we are comparing ourselves to — whether the newbies or the greats. So how good are you? * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. | |
| Elections and divorces: Hoodwinked, healing, helping Posted: 02 Jun 2013 04:12 PM PDT
JUNE 3 — "If more politicians in this country were thinking about the next generation instead of the next election, it might be better for the United States and the world." — Claude Pepper. The closely-contested general election is over in Malaysia, but the charismatic Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim continues to hold court with the media, lead rallies and press the cause of a stolen election as his party won the popular vote. The RM64,000 question Should Anwar accept the election results, with the understanding that in the court of public opinion in Malaysia and with his large following overseas, he is the "winner" as he single-handedly almost willed a victory against insurmountable odds — a better-funded party with control of the media? Thus, he has a strong foundation to build upon for future generations in GE14 with the carry-over momentum from GE13. It may well be reasonable to expect Malaysia to have a new party leading the country since the country's independence! Or should he continue the post-election reform fight for justice and possibly lose some/much of the goodwill he built for himself and his coalition party? Has the Malaysian (wo)man on the street moved on to expect the trickle-down deliverables Datuk Seri Najib Razak promised on crime, corruption, education, etc.? Yet Anwar is stuck in the political quicksand of a personalised fight. Put differently, is the continued contesting of elections in the best interest of the country and its people? Elections and divorces Are there some parallels between contested elections and bad divorces? Should not the focus be on the children of feuding parents and populace of feuding politicians? Let's assume Anwar (PKR) is the father, Najib (BN) is the mother and the country/populace are the children, The contested GE13 results are like a bad divorce: in-your-face, heated, ugly, mud-slinging with personal attacks, statistics out of context and so on. There was the usual negative campaigning, unfit to raise the children or unfit to (continue) to lead the country, rather than positive campaigning of "my mission and vision" on the future of the children and increasing employment, gross national income, etc. The standard test for parents or politicians is or should be "best interest of the children or populace/country," respectively, in divorces or elections. The unilateral post-decision "fighting" may cause more harm than good as the children/populace/country are in a state of suspended animation and cannot move on. Do the advisers of the runner-up and family/friends of the losing parent have the responsibility to tell them it's time to "move on" so that they can prepare to fight another day or start a new life? Refutable assumption It's an almost irrefutable assumption that in the best interest of a child, he/she should be with the mother. However, it is a refutable assumption that the incumbent party's re-election is in the best interest of the populace/country. Thus, the divorce proceedings, much like the election campaigning, allow each side to present (hopefully) hard evidence to a judge or the electorate of being fit to raise the children or run the country. But the reality of the situation is there is much airing of dirty laundry involving digging up of dirt, infidelity and integrity attacks, drama, "smoking gun" and so on. Yes, there will be mistakes made along the way, be it interpretations or voting irregularities. However, one hopes they are not outcome determinative. Obviously, an appeals process and an "independent" Election Commission can act as safety nets to undo grave mistakes. The decision When the judge's decision is finally made and the votes are counted, there must be a winner and a runner-up, and, theoretically, the "healing and helping" process commences as the best interest of the children/country is paramount. The best interest of the child/country implies (1) the winner extends his hand to the counter-party to work together, and (2) the runner-up (bitterness aside) "promises" to support and work together for a brighter future. The irony of the situation is the dignity and character of the "runner-up" is more scrutinised than the humility of the winner, as the former can undermine and/or hijack the outcome when "de facto campaigning" takes place. For example, if post-election opposition rallies become smaller and fewer, it implies people have generally moved on and are willing to work with the newly-elected government (which is on probation). Furthermore, the garnered goodwill may be slowly eroding to the point where some of the runner-up party voters may either switch parties or not vote at all during the next election. Post-decision In the case of the divorce, the spouses have an opportunity to marry again (not always), but, more importantly, are better informed about what they want and do not want in a future partner. Furthermore, the children have hopefully transitioned and adjusted to new expectations from the (once) feuding parents. In the case of an election, the runner-up undertakes a post-mortem analysis of what worked and did not work; hence, preparation for the next (Malaysian) election starts after accepting the results. Five years is a long slog, hence, time enough to convince voters to switch parties, make an impression on newly-registered voters (youth), etc., based upon positive campaigning. After the election, the court of public opinion will soon make the distinction of whether the runner-up wants to undo election results (interest of the politician) or prepare for the next elections (interest of country). (It is not reasonable for the runner-up in the post-election period to try to plant seeds of an Arab Spring moment. The Arab Spring was an overthrow of "democratically elected dictators", followed by chaos, and now controlled chaos in places like Egypt and Libya. Malaysia is a democratically mature country vis-à-vis Arab Spring countries, hence, no need for an ASEAN Spring.) Conclusion The comment, possibly somewhat out of context, of former US President Gerald Ford summarises the philosophy of looking ahead based upon "togetherness" as the best interest of the populace (and children). "Even though this is late in an election year, there is no way we can go forward except together and no way anybody can win except by serving the people's urgent needs. We cannot stand still or slip backwards. We must go forward now together." Anwar and Najib, GE14 is more about the next generation and less about the next election! * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan