Word Play 5: Performance

It was announced in Nov last year that the decision of potential increments and promotions in my current workplace would be measured "performance-based", as opposed to the previous method of based on the number of years of service. For me, this announcement was of negligible concern, as I've only just reached my fifth month there then. Even now, the change in policy does not affect me too much. However, what intrigues me is the term "performance", which I'll like to analyse today.

From dictionary.com, below are the definitons of the words "perform" and "performance".
Perform (verb)
1. to carry out; execute; do
2. to go through or execute in the proper, customary, or established manner
3. to carry into effect; fulfill
4. to act (a play, part, etc.), as on the stage, in movies, or on television.
5. to render (music), as by playing or singing.

Performance (noun)
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
4. a particular action, deed, or proceeding.
5. an action or proceeding of an unusual or spectacular kind.

Thus, when these terms are applied in the workplace context, some higly relevant and necessary components would be, the fulfilment and execution of the duties of an employee, with his superiors and colleagues as the audience.

A common grouse heard in all workplaces by staff who do not hold each other in high regard is that their opponent engages in "wayang". Wayang, is the Malay terms for "acting", which is form of performance. In fact, point 5 of performance's defintion states that it is unsual and spectacular, to summarise meaning dramatic (point 1).When have we equated dramatic to being fake, or the Chinese phrase "做作"(doing for the sake of doing), I'm unable to trace... Let us then examine the typical drama series to have an idea into "performance" and how it relates to the workplace.

A typical drama or sitcom of any genre will always consist of a few main protagonists, with other supporting cast to flesh out the script. Meanwhile, all production members trust the audience to be clear-sighted enough to take notice of not just their individual performances, but also the main plot. No matter, the age / gender / seniority of whichever member of the cast in the drama, they must never deviate from the plot and must adhere to the roles given to them, unless allowed by the scriptwriter / director / fellow members of the cast.

There are instances in many shows, were the performance of some supporting cast so outshine the leads', that it causes awkwardness between all members of the production, garnering negative press for an otherwise noteworthy show. Even more common is the case of intense rivalry between two main leads when they compete for screen time to showcase their talent at performaning, creating a headache for the director. These unfortunately are cases where the "drama of the offscreen" has ursuped the "onscreen drama". Similarly in the workplace, all staff must take care not to let "offscreen drama" trump "onscreen drama", as this would lead to mayhem in the plot. In the light of this new perspective, I'm beginning to see my boss' comment of me "creating an impression of no teamwork in the workplace" in a different light...

I'll then like to give all members serving in workplace out there a question to muse about. What's the script pertaining first and foremost to yourself, and then in relation to the entire script and other characters? Now for me to do a bit of grumbling. I was very confused about my script for the first 5 months. Thankfully with indication from the higher management, I've been entrusted with a new role, which is less ambiguous, with many many mentors who are more than willing and welcome to share with me how to enhance my performance. Even then, I've noticed a very disturbing fact. No one seems to be sure of the full complete plot, be it whether main cast or supporting cast. With no clear idea of the main complete plot, teamwork amongst all members of the production would of course be a struggle...

Word Play 4: Ability and Capacity for Creation

Three of the previous blog entries were initially meant as feedback and clarification sessions towards some remarks made by my superiors in my workplace, which in my personal opnion, were severely misused. Since then, I've noticed that when I engage in rebuttals of this kind, I delve into "word play", namely by defining the generally accepted explanation of the terms, then employing logic to see whether the accepted explanations apply in the context they are employed, in order to state my argument. Thus, I've decided to sub-head these entries under a "word play" series in this blog. :)

This fourth foray into "word play" is also "inspired" by a rather misguided comment by my boss. To quote the exact words used, I had "created an impression of no teamwork in the office". I'm very sure when he made the remark, there was never suppossed to have been any positive connontation intended. However, he has unwittingly praised me of sorts... :p

Let's look into the definition of the word "creation" from dictionary.com.
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is or has been created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5. the world; universe.

The terms "producing", "causing to exist" and even God himself, are components of the word "creation". By golly... Common logic would deduce that to be able to produce or cause something into existence, be it positive or negative, would surely require ability and capacity of a certain level. Afterall, the concept of bringing about something into existence, implies that the something had not existed previously... Goodness, I never knew I was equipped with the ability and capacity to cause disunity and mayhem into existence at my current workplace, within a span of less than six months (he had made this remark in Nov 2011)!

As much as I pride myself on professionalism in the workplace, but unfortunately display a very stern, fierce and intimidating countenance when fulfilling my duties, I would have never thought that these traits alone are enough to bring disintegration of teamwork at my worplace... I'm bound by HR regulations and am unable to reveal too much about what is going on in my workplace, but considering my designation and the amount of authority I'm given, I definitely feel I'm not in any capacity to create anything of this magnitude. Then the subsequent question I wish I could feedback to the management in my office would be, could the negative aspect which I'm held accountable to have created, actually have already existed prior to entry, with me taking on the role of a mere catalyst or magnifier?

Finally, I'll like to end this blog entry off with an general appeal to everyone to not just listen to others' words carefully, but also to apply your own words carefully next time, in whatever context. Even the words of Singapore politicians like Grace Fu, Tin Pei Ling, Chan Chun Sing, come back to haunt them relentlessly... :p

Word Play 3: Common “currency” for measuring productivity?

I’ve had a nasty brush with my boss on Wednesday. Many topics were brought up, but till this day, a spot of bother for me has been the misuse of the term productivity in his statements. He had directly equated the productivity of a certain department in office to its (in)ability to bring in donations.

Let us have a look at productivity from dictionary.com then.
1. The quality, state, or fact of being able to generate, create, enhance, or bring forth goods and services.
2. Economics: the rate at which goods and services having exchange value are brought forth or produced.
3. Grammar: the ability to form new words using established patterns and discrete linguistic elements, as the derivational affixes -ness and -ity .

Even though the context of productivity is applied more towards economics and linguistics, as seen in points 2 and 3, the universally applied terms of generation, creation and enhancement of products and services of a certain quality appear, as seen in the first definition.

In the recent light of how SMRT has grossly underperformed, it is definitely agreed that SMRT is not being productive at all. It may hae even been counterproductive. No doubt SMRT management has been churning in increased profits consistently per annum, it has become complacent in generation of acceptable quality transport, not even to say enhance current transport quality.

A major "habit of convenience" employers have, especially in Singapore, would be to equate productivity with the rate at which income and profits are being generated. They have directly linked income and profits to productivity. However, they have fallen into a “blind spot” of sorts.

The logic behind productivity is:
1. Products or services of acceptable or even enhanced quality are generated
2. These products or services’ demand rises, leading to increase sales, bringing increased income level and profits
3. The income and profit level are thus a measurement of the rate of generation and enhancement of the goods and service.

However, what if income and profit generation, are not through generation and enhancement of the products and services? Firstly, demand may not increase solely due to betterment of the quality of a product. It may simply be just because there are more consumers. Taking SMRT as an example, just because there are more passengers, does not mean its service has improved. It is simply because commuters have no better alternative at the same pricing. With the increased population in Singapore due to influx of people from overseas, the overall number of commuters has increased, definitely translating into increased revenue for SMRT. A second, and even more horrifying notion, is that income generation is not through increased demand at all, but through reduction of expenses or increase of pricing. Reduction of expenses may very well compromise on the quality of the product, whereas increased pricing put a very heavy burden unto consumers, especially if the product and service are necessities...

Dollars and cents are not necessarily the best measure of the productivity of a company, organization or department all the time. The relation between dollars and cents to the amount and quality of service is secondary at best.

Now let me apply it to the particular department in question my boss was talking about. The department as absolutely no direct relations to fundraising and donations, thus it is a “leap of faith” to measure its productivity in relation to fundraising and donations brought in. However, this does not mean, that department has gone “scot free”. The department has to ensure continuous generation and enhancement of its products and services, to convince donors that this organization is a worthwhile place to donate to. With regard to this aspect, I’m still very new to this department, thus I’m in no position yet to assess their productivity using this criteria.

Nevertheless, it is essential and even critical to get the degree of relations and relevance of dollars and cents to our productivity right, and stop worshipping this type of “common sense” blindly, lest we lose all "direction sense" eventually… Just look at the number and frequency of public transport fiascos. This norm is simply not acceptable!

Word Play 2: Leadership & Control

Lately, a term that has sparked fresh interest in me is that of “leadership”, especially of how it is correlated to control, and its amount.

In dictionary.com, the noun “leadership” has the explanations below:
1. the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group: He managed to maintain his leadership of the party despite heavy opposition. Synonyms: administration, management, directorship, control, governorship, stewardship, hegemony.
2. ability to lead. Synonyms: authoritativeness, influence, command, effectiveness; sway, clout.
3. an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction
4. the leaders of a group.

Point 1 defines the terms in direct relation to leadership, while points 2 to 4 elaborate who does the act, how the act of leadership is carried out, and its criteria. Note the terms of guidance and direction come up in its definition, as well as control. However, it is guidance and direction that are essential to leadership, and not control. Control is merely a tool and effect, during guidance and direction. Confused and lost? Let’s use the analogy of the human body and the condition of epilepsy to get a better idea.

The brain decides how best to proceed in our daily functions, be it learned or natural, consciously or subconscious. We have to consciously learn how to maneuver a pair of chopsticks. It doesn’t come naturally upon birth. However, we never need to consciously learn how much we need to breathe in, it comes naturally. Thus, the brain is the leader in our body, guiding our body parts, which include the heart, lungs, stomach, etc, in performing things all the time. However the relationship of the brain with its body parts is that of an entire team working together. Any amount of inappropriate control to the body would be deemed unhealthy to the body.

What is the criteria of a good leader then? The brain needs to exercise control over the other body parts, in suitable amounts, such that the body stays physically healthy. This exertion of control can be both conscious or unconscious, but it needs to be appropriate. Excessiveness or insufficiency, are both equally detrimental.

In the case of an epileptic, inability to cope with an excessive trigger, which can be physical or mental stress, causes the nerves connecting the brain to the body parts to spark of a “mutiny” or “strike”, with the person doing acts, ranging from that of mildly unnatural to downright harmful and dangerous. The epileptic’s human body suffers physically in such cases.

To cope with this, the epileptic then needs to learn how to cope with the potential of this scenario occurring. This maybe through avoidance of these stress triggers, medication to ease the tolerance level towards these stress triggers, which all work together towards training and conditioning of the epileptic’s tolerance level, such that he or she is eventually recovers, being able to cope with common stress trigger amounts.

This process of training and conditioning depends on the severity of the epileptic’s condition. The epileptic needs to discern wisely how much amount of stress to subject himself or herself to, such that his or her body’s tolerance level neither stagnates without improvement, nor is it such that an attack happens. However, the ultimate direction is that of eventual independence from medication and acceptable tolerance to stress trigger, which is through training and conditioning, under the guidance of past experiences and medication.

A leader needs to know the strengths and weaknesses of his team, tap on the strengths of the team, while guiding the team members to overcome their weaknesses. Thus, appropriate control would be needed. If there is excessive control, like in the case of a hegemony, the team may stagnate in performance with negligible progress towards their direction. With insufficient control, the team may run berserk, with everyone wanting to decide for themselves, losing track of their ultimate common direction. Whichever way, the team is not performing in the optimal standard, being an unhealthy body.

Early on, the knowledgeable apostle Paul had already used the analogy of the body, in the context of leadership and teamwork, specifically in the church. Let’s muse on that Bible verse to end off.

For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it cheerfully.
Romans 12: 4-8 (NIV)