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)

Smiling :)

This post was initially in the lyrical about life blog in late September and early October, but upon reflection, it may be more relevant here. In 《红楼梦》one of the main female protagnists, 林黛玉, is a scrooge when it comes to smiling despite being a ravishing beauty, only reserving her rare smiles for her beau, 贾宝玉.

Was just having another random session of reflections when I realised a very common statement close friends have continuously made. Those whose friendship have deepened with me always remark "If I didn't get to know you well, I wouldn't think you're the type to smile". My reply would always be "Why should I smile when there is no need to smile". Now in retrospect, I think the reply was kind of a half-truth, as what I always wanted to say was "Why should I smile for others, when there is no such need to smile?"

Now when I put it into a honest statement to myself, I really want to guffaw. When did the notion of my smile belonging to others, and not myself ever occur??? The muscles are on my face, not theirs!!!! Goodness, I'm always a pundit for logic and common sense. Now looking at this statement point blank, it makes totally no sense and is absolutely hilarious. Really want to burst out laughing, but instead what comes out is more of the twitching of the corners of my mouth into an upward curve ever so slight. Well, I think God would say it's an improvement of sorts. :p

Below is a wikipedia link to the concept of smiling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smile

By gosh I don't know when I always linked the notion of smiling for me, in particular to have a heavy negative connotation versus the positive connotation. When I reflect on what I naturally associate my smiles in particular with, a lot of ridiculous and nonsensical notions actually surface.

1. Smiling is a sign of absolute immaturity
This rationale is crap. I look at so many who I love, admire and respect, they're all great smilers who naturally exude an air of self-respect and self-assuredness. How come when I apply it to myself, the concept of immaturity comes in???
2. I'm lousy at attempting to smile when the incentive is low and it comes out deceptive, so I'd rather go to the other extreme and look serious
Ok, this notion is slightly better in logic but then loopholes are still present with flawed logic. Of course smiling for the sake of smiling seems forced and I've always been lousy at acting. Then I stop short. Wait, when did the concept of it being acting come in? Why doubt my own sincerity? I can conversely also be insincere in attempting to come across as serious, but how come I never question and plough straight ahead with displaying this behaviour??? Weird...
3. I should only smile and laugh at appropriate timings
Flawed logic again. When is it "appropriate"? I tend to define the appropriate timing and amount based on others, never myself. For those who I'm familiar and assured with, then of course it emerges more, and vice versa for the other opposite scenario. Goodness, no wonder many always remark later I have this look as if I want to "murder" someone initially, when I'm actually freaking scared of being "murdered" by them...

We human being are created in the image of God. It is very amazing the Bible has never mentioned what Jesus Christ looked like, with not a single word on his physical features. We thinking that He being God, would have to look awesomely handsome, with a megawatt smile of the holy kind. Then the ball is thrown back to our, namely my court. Since I'm a daughter of His, of course I must resemble him. If I think He has a great smile, why doubt that I'm terrible at smiling and should remain poker faced unless necessary. When He tells me to smile, then just smile la, goodness! :)

Movie Mayhem with God Part 8: The Ides of March

Alright, a final movie to wrap up for 2012. Sorry, for only writing it now as I think it's most probably off from the theatres by now, though for those determined ones, you can still try your luck with Cathay. Good luck!

My feelings towards this movie are very mixed. I had watched it as early as 10 weeks ago and was utterly dejected when I walked out. Not disappointed with the movie. In fact, it was a great movie. I had gained another two actors to follow (Ryan Gosling and George Clooney). More of disappointed with myself as I knew how much I could relate to Ryan Gosling's character in the film. I was greatly in danger of being totally disillusioned and jaded with my work then... Yup, Ryan Gosling's character ends up that way, after a series of tumultous events which totally changes his outlook towards what he had believed in and served so passionately then. I do not wish to give spoilers, so please check out the film at your DVD shop three months later or try your luck at Cathay cinemas asap...

I'd like to delve deeper into where I think Ryan Gosling's character had gone wrong in the start, which would ultimately lead to eventual disappointment no matter what. He was worshipping and serving people (which includes not just his colleagues but also himself) and the work itself, not God. Ok, very difficult to explain what is the difference, but to just to simplify matters, he idolised people (himself and/or others) and the work itself.

However, no matter what or who we idolise, we'll eventually end up being disappointed with it or them, period. Simply because they are not God. Thus, they will have the capacity to fail and disappoint. Just as God blessed us with them, we must keep in mind that they are from God, but they are not God... I know this is very hard to explain in concrete terms... To get a bit of relevant support, maybe this blog of mine "Work ≠ War" may help shed more light unto what I'm trying to get at...
http://workneednotencompasswar.blogspot.com/

We just have to keep our focus on God. Then everything will be alright. Period. It is by no coincidence that 2012 begins on a sunday. Sunday is Sabbath, basically a day of rest as decided by God himself. Let's all give ourselves a good rest on the first day of 2012, so that we can focus on God for 2012, and leave it for Him to pave the way for us. All we need to do is make sure we look out for his voice and obey his words. It's always about God, never about how, what, why, us, them or it...

but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:10-11 (NIV)

What do workers gain from their toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him.
Ecclesiastes 3:9-14 (NIV)

How "intimate" are you with your job?

First and foremost, I'll like to thank God for having safely brought me to the last day of 2011, It's been a rocky year, but I look back and thank Him for tiding me through. Secondly, I'd like to thank Him for giving me the "eureka" moment by answering this persistent question that has been bugging me quite a while, especially in the past four months... In a previous post on this blog, I had brought up that a common advice friends had given me, when I shared my dejection over work challenges, was to "just treat this as a job".

Frankly speaking, I hated that phrase. In fact, I detested that phrase and was sort of "sneering" behind their backs at what I thought was their lack of commitment and professionalism. Finally upon reading this collection of short stories "Kadokawa Shoten" (loosely translated as "Definitely no tears") by Fumio Yamamoto, I finally realised the truth...

In Yamamoto's short stories, she potrays snippets of ladies in a range of common and uncommon professions, and their mindsets when going about work and their relationships with others (this includes not just colleagues but also family, friends and even lovers) pertaining to their job. In the epilogue, Yamamoto writes that it is "not necessary for everyone to love or even like their job", even though the author herself prefers the mode of being madly in love with her work. She also says that due to the limited time span each of us have in our life, we are unable to experience all the different types of work available, and thus will never understand or empathise how others treat their work.

I'm very grateful for having read these insights and gained a better understanding to that phrase I had reviled so much then. Turns out that that phrase is a "rubber phrase", as people often describe as flexible to personal preference and interpretation. We tend to think of our job as an object, something devoid of emotions, likes and dislikes. Granted the work itself is not a being. However, when we work, we will have to deal with other human beings. It is just that depending on the nature of our job, the types of people we deal with will vary and so will our frequency with them. Thus, I'd like to further build on Yamamoto's insight, and state that how we define our job depends on the level and type of intimacy we'll like to have with those we deal with when working...

This intimacy preference, will then depend solely on the personal makeup of what are the worker's principles and values. Taking myself, I crave honesty, integrity and responsibility, both from self and others. Thus, the vibes I may give off to others may be that of stern, demanding though sincere. For those who value principles and values of kindness and forgiveness, they may come across as less intimidating to others, though I would misunderstand and view it as complacency and leniency to both self and others.

In this area, there is no rule of right and wrong level and type of intimacy, as each person is unique in their makeup. What matters most is that as a worker, we have a relationship with our work. Afterall, creation itself is work, God himself being the ultimate creator, having a relationship with all that he created. Once we cease to want to maintain our relationships at work at all, only then it really signalls something being very wrong...

Having completed my LCCI course in basic accounting, I've always been fascinated by the defintions of terms "capital", "asset" and "liability", though more from a sociological and linguistic point-of-view. As we draw to the close of this year, I've come to realise that God is indeed absolutely fair and just to everyone. Each one of us, has an equal amount of time in a full day. Everyone only has 24 hours. No more, no less. We are all given equal capital. Whether it translates into an asset or liability, will depend on how we work to maintain our relationships. Happy New Year's Eve and blessed 2012!

P.S. For those who are tired with their work and/or maintenance of relationships, maybe just sneak a peak into the book of Ecclesiastes of the Bible. It seems a depressing read upon first glance, but take time to digest it slowly. We have all the same amount of "capital" to use. Enjoy!

What do workers gain from their toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him.
Ecclesiastes 3:9-14 (NIV)

Relationship Thirst: Coffee or Wine?

In the Dream of the Red Mansion《红楼梦》, the protagonist 贾宝玉 often questions about relationship thirst, debating over the theory that men are made of soil and women are made of water. After having been through a series of heart-wrenching events, he eventually deduced that men and women contain both elements.

I've shared with some peers about my relationship escapades, past and present. Strictly speaking they were all prematurely conceived or one-sided (though part of me is still highly suspicious but even then...). Most feedback generated were that my "tactics" employed were suicidal, such that I extinguished any possibility through my forthrightness.

One close friend was very amused over how I still kept in touch with a certain guy for more than a decade, with both me and him still in 暧昧 mode. She had jokingly remarked that this series of happenings between us two could rival the length of Taiwanese drama serials, and that if it were her, she would have lost patience early on.

A mentor of mine from my current workplace had once analysed that if a woman's outlook towards relationships is that she wishes to love the guy more than he loves her, she must be prepared to have patience to wait for the relationship to nurture.

It seems that most my compatriots outlook towards boy-girl relationshps often take the mode of coffee, especially instant coffee. The aim is to settle for something that quenches your thirst as soon as possible, while providing both parties with as much energy to keep awake for the challenges ahead. If the coffee has added creamer, sugar thrown in according to cater to your individual taste bud preference level, all the better.

The attitude I (and some other rarer girl friends) have towards boy-girl relationships is of that of wine. We do not ask for too much. A small sip is enough to open up our appetite to love him more, our digestion of the blessings we have been bestowed everyday. We are also patient in waiting for it to ferment into a top-rate beverage.

However, be it wine or coffee, over-reliance on them to quench thirst runs risk of leading to addiction. I do not need to elaborate the negative and detrimental effects of coffee addiction and alcohol addiction.

Here I need to keep in mind the most important element in all beverages, namely water. Without any fluid, it would cease to function as a beverage. As Jesus Christ has likened himself to being water to quench our spiritual thirst, I would pray for him to lead me toward the exact beverage suited to satisfy and nourish me. Amen!

Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
John 4:13-14 (NIV)