The hunger controversy

While Lee Shulin isn't getting cancelled when she remarked how employers prefer to let go Singaporeans over foreign hires because the latter are 'hungrier', it was the trigger for a much needed conversation about the job market and matching talent with needs.

A lot of the vitriol came from the misunderstanding of what Lee meant by 'hunger', and to be fair, she did not define it either. Possible, she made an off-the-cuff utterance, but it was enough to become the focal point of the larger discussion that was on CNA.

'Not hungry enough' is a triggering phrase. Especially for young job hunters looking for first time employment, they see themselves as being at the bottom of a grand hierarchy, being paid the minimum of wages to do the maximum amount of labour. After all, that's what starting at the bottom means. To suggest that they aren't hungry enough sparks the response: 'I'm already doing so much--what more do you expect me to do? And you're not paying me enough to boot!'

I appreciate the Singaporean work ethic. I see it in the classroom all the time. They will work their butts off on a graded assignment. Full concentration, busy, and most tellingly, silent. But it's an entirely transactional kind of engagement. Non-graded assignments are f-all, minimum effort, distracted and lower quality than they can actually deliver.

What we have here is an employee mindset. Will do whatever you tell them to, but only if it is directly paired with commensurate reward. I suppose it's realistic. Young workers have expenses and if they spend too much time at the office and being paid scraps for the effort, and barely paying off their personal bills, it's hard to think of a future when they'll need to pay for dates, a wedding and support a family later in life.

Thinking this way, Singaporeans are always going to be hungry, always subsisting on not enough. So, when a job recruiter says they're not hungry enough, wow. Cue torches and pitchforks.

But that's not the hunger Lee is talking about. It's not about the work. The employee only does what they're told, however unreasonable, as long as the reward follows. Finish the job, get paid, go home, enjoy what little work-life balance there is left to enjoy. But ask them what the work meant, and most would not be able to say. The paycheck was the objective, nothing more.

If the money is all they are working for, then they are completely replaceable.  Not to mention foreigners, AI already is a hugely viable substitute. Like the Singaporean employee, AI does what it's told, but does it faster, mostly accurately, doesn't complain, and doesn't even need to be paid. And most like the Singaporean employee, AI doesn't really know what it's doing other than executing a set of instructions, and doesn't care what effect or impact the work has on the business as a whole. At the end of the string of instructions is the end of the day and the only difference is that the Singaporean employee has to go home for a few hours before they're ready to start the next day all over again. That's not hunger, that's routine with a trigger-warning.

Perhaps Lee used the wrong vocabulary when she said 'hunger'. I believe she meant 'ownership'. Like you understand the business well enough, and own the job to the extent that you don't require instructions from a supervisor to perform what is needed. You're observant, constantly thinking of the processes that keep the business flowing, and you're already there where things have slowed down before a bottleneck occurs. You're constantly thinking of new and better ways to keep the flow going. Most importantly, the objective isn't the paycheck, but the person at the end of the line who is delighted with the product or service they received that you, in your own little way, helped to deliver.

Singaporean employees seek work, but start at the wrong end. If the money is the most important thing, then they're prepared to suck it up, get the job done for the paycheck--and complain later over coffee and Reddit. Their work ethic is admirable, but since so many are like that, their employers will be searching for viable replacements at the earliest opportunity.

What's the right end, then? It's fit. To know yourself well enough to develop your own weird and wonderful way rather than blindly follow the crowd. Create a niche for yourself with definable, yet flexible borders so that you can offer more than just 'I'll do whatever you tell me'. Rather, offer a role that will both meet the business objectives by performing your particular set of skills, while simultaneously learning the business by practicing its routines. And care about the end-user. You and the organisation you work for exist only because someone needs you to.

Hunger isn't about personal survival. The hunger is for organisational survival. When you have this hunger, you are no longer a rogue cell easily sloughed off when you've outlived your usefulness. Instead, you've become an integral part of the overall structure. Who knows, mitosis could possibly happen, when you've outgrown the business and are ready to branch out on your own.

The lanes, how I've missed thee

Well, this video was totally unsolicited. George, Bee, and I chaperoned the kids at an introductory course in bowling. Brought back memories of some of my earlier posts in this blog when causing our own chaos at the lanes was all the rage.

I joined in as a participant to make up for a vacancy and learned a couple of tips that benefited my game. Stand on the centre dot to start my walk-up and aim dead straight at the second aiming arrow right from middle. Stay focused and follow-through. That did wonders for keeping my first throws on target, mostly. Still need more work to convert the spares, but that was beyond the objective of today's toe-dip into 10-pin mayhem. Racked up a score just below the averages I used to get back then.

I loved the ball I selected from the public rack, this silver 11-pounder with holes that perfectly matched my grip. It fit so well and handled so easily that it gave me a lot of confidence using it. I wish I could have bought it there and then, but since I'm not bowling regularly any more, it would just have been a frivolous purchase. I didn't notice Bee taking this video of me but, damn, despite maybe a decade or more being out of practice, I still haven't lost much form. Good thing I did convert this spare, else it would have been all flair and no substance.

The elderly chief coach has inspired me to likewise be a bowling coach in my retirement years. Not long now...

Sleep paralysis demon

This face belongs to my newly-acquired sleep paralysis demon. One night I had a dream that made me annoyed and angry. I don't remember the details, but I remember the emotions I was feeling when I suddenly woke up. Sir, you are sleeping on my chest and stomach. Your chubbiness is compressing my insides, making breathing difficult while limiting my range of movement which I like to enjoy, even when asleep.

That was a couple of weeks ago, so why am I posting this report now? Because since then, I have been waking up to this face at all strange hours of the night as since he's done it once, he feels entitled to do so repeatedly. No more. Your new career has been terrifying and short-lived. You threw up on my carpet and my mattress, so now you are summarily banned from my room. In revenge, he's taken to jump scaring me awake with the Song of his People, loudly lamenting the injustice of revoking his privileges for no good reason. Excuse me, sir?

Music box

A little souvenir from our staff bonding exercise today. We crafted our own music box diorama from a selection of figurines brought over by the vendor, Okdodoo, a local startup. My first attempt is messy with the use of too much glue. The residue is obvious in the shiny flecks on the display surface. I had my eye on a larger, more realistic looking tree, but was seconds too slow to grab it off the parts table. Hence this more stylized tree which I'll take as a metaphor for why we can't have nice things. Regardless, I'm pleased with the overall composition which avoids excessive symmetry, and things arranged along a straight line. The music is, of course, a couple of bars from the "My Neighbor Totoro" theme. The tone is pleasant, soothing even, and worth the wind-up, at least while the novelty still lasts.

A shout-out to the two partners of Okdodoo who are 'live' demonstrations of taking the path less traveled by foregoing their corporate careers to pursue a creative passion. Each item is hand-crafted by the two of them. They didn't detail their process, but it's clear they're fully committed to their craft and motivated by a love for what they do. Given today's activity theme of the future of work, these two gentlemen clearly embody some of the many traits that we would like to see in our kids as we prepare them for their futures.

Long Service

Amy gave me the scoop on being put on the list of recipients of The Long Service Medal (Pingat Bakti Setia) from among this year's National Day Awardees. She has good eyes, being that in this category alone, there are already over a thousand folks listed from just my industry.

Long service counts 25 years of employment in the Civil Service, including the 2 years I spent in full-time National Service. Funny that when I signed on in this industry, I thought I would only serve out my contract of three years before I would lose my mind, or get kicked out, whichever came first. Where I am currently serving, I will say that while there are inevitable push factors, there have been no pull factors at all strong enough to overcome more than two decades of job inertia.

The criterion is really about time served. If it had been any more stringent, well, let's just say that my service hasn't exactly been exemplary. Too much rebellion, too many mistakes, and probably a lot of upset people to take the shine off the silver, I reckon. But I have always striven to be civil, so there's that.

A quarter century. It still doesn't feel like it was that long ago that I felt the need to do some responsible adulting. Somebody has to keep this and the other furballs in kibble.

Ahem, the least you could do is look grateful.

Don't wanna go back to school!

To Liu who wrote:

Globalisation could negate efforts in skills upgrading

From Liu Rijing -

October 6

I refer to The Big Read article “Despite being vulnerable, few PMETs heed call to learn new skills” (Oct 1) and wish to raise a few points.

First, threats to jobs come not only from technological change but also globalisation.

So how can we be sure that learning new skills will ensure we do not lose out to global competition when companies relocate owing to cost considerations?

Second is whether a new skill one picks up would still be in demand after one has spent time and money to complete the training.

Third, when companies can choose to outsource professional work to a worker based in a foreign country with a lower salary, how can skills upgrading help then? (Today Online)

If you are looking for assurances, there are none. Sorry. But if you don't want to undergo skills upgrading, that's fine. When enough of us refuse to do so, there will be more opportunities for overseas companies to outsource their crappy, low-skilled, underpaid, exploitative, dangerous jobs to us. That should put your overarching fear of unemployment to rest.

10 cents for career counselling, thanks!

Who's an unhappy camper?

S'poreans show their unhappy side again, this time with their employment situation. That is, compared across the board against our South-East Asian counterparts, our employees are the most unhappy.

I wonder what we would see if we cross-reference our job happiness index against a corresponding survey on general income levels? My guess would be that S'poreans are educated, and have expectations of higher income and better job prospects that are set somewhat above realistic; whereas our neighbours are happy to have a job that puts food on the table for their families.

This observation is intended to be neither snarky nor mean. It's probably a human trait that when we have more we make ourselves unhappy by wanting even more; conversely when we have but a little, we are happy being grateful for that little.

We also seem to be looking at the wrong things to be happy about:

Singapore respondents felt that getting a new job (30 per cent), a higher salary (19 per cent), or receiving recognition from the company (9 per cent) would help increase their job happiness.

These perks offer immediate gratification. But they don't come around too often, and when they do, they usually also come with more work, more responsibilities, and more time spent in the office -- side-effects that make us more unhappy in the long run. We accept them anyway, in order to justify the happiness we feel from achieving these very temporary rewards.

We actually have a good problem. To be able to have and want more is a good thing. But it means that if we also want to be happy, all we need to do is realise that happiness is a choice we make for ourselves. Choose wisely!

An afterthought: perhaps the jobs of Management and Middle-management are inherently unhappy? Managers neither own the company nor do much of the actual production work, so they are sort of in-between, easily replaceable and sometimes even an obstacle to getting real work done. Who'd be happy in a job like that?

It's just a job

My Teachers Day thoughts, though a bit belated:

I'm a teacher. That's my job. But don't expect me bend over backwards and rip my own heart out to help each kid pass their exams when they aren't.

My best teachers were those who taught me nothing. They didn't pretend that their words were gospel or that if I didn't heed them, my life was over. They did share their ideas, but let me form my own thoughts and reach my own conclusions, and we had enjoyable tutorial discussions because of this kind of mutual understanding. They were an interested audience to my exploration of less popular pathways of coursework and were pleased to give me space and independence to bring back my discoveries for evaluation. Though they often graded my work with raised eyebrows, they were fair as well.

For my own part, all I really am is just some dude who picked up a couple of skills over a few decades of experience. All I do is pass them on to those who need them and can make use of them. I entertain no further aspirations nor illusions about this job my mother tells people I have.

A simple test for career assessment

Random thought of the day: how do you know if the job you are doing is the right one for you? Or if you're better off quitting the job you have? Or if the job you've been fired or retrenched from is one you cannot afford to lose?

Ask yourself if you would do the job for free. If you can't or won't, get the heck out. The logic is simple. If you can't even give it away, no one in their right mind would pay you for it.

Rising above merit

Meritocracy is a great idea to build a society around. It upholds the ideal of equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of social background; ethnicity; creed; or any other impediment that might hold an individual back from doing better in life. Our country is built on the idea of Meritocracy. Those who prove they can, deserve the biggest rewards is what we believe. Unfortunately for us, that's not how Meritocracy works. I'm not saying that our version of Meritocracy doesn't work, I'm saying that the mechanic of a meritocracy in general does not work the way we think (or wish) it would work.

The central tenet behind Meritocracy is "the best man (or woman) for the job". True. Whomever has the ability will also have a job. But no one said the job had to pay well. Meritocracy works fine in determining an individual's starting point. The transition between schooling and getting employed is certainly determined by the merit of one's academic qualifications, no question there. Entry-level requirements and starting pay can be said to follow along a merit-based scale. So it's no lie to tell the kids to study hard to get a good [entry-level] job.

But once in a job, merit is acquired by meeting job requirements, and sometimes taking up higher education is part and parcel of those job requirements at higher levels. So far, that's what we do understand of how Meritocracy works. What we haven't quite grasped yet is that being competent in one's job is not commensurate with the expected rewards that go with it. So when we berate our overwhelmingly well-paid top policy-makers for not being competent at solving the problems they are being paid to solve, what we fail to comprehend is that they are not actually being paid to solve those problems.

Let's talk about 'competence' first. Being competent means to do one's job well. It's a matter of training, a little aptitude, and a whole lot of experience in order to be competent at one's job. The longer one stays in a job, therefore, the more likely one will become increasingly competent in it. This is especially true if the job is a safe, normal job that many other people are doing and thus it is easy to benchmark one's 'competence' against an industry average. If the job we are competent in is a job many other people are also doing, that's a job that isn't likely to be well-paid because everybody's doing the same thing.

So how do some "lucky" people wind up with the jobs we know are better paying? The better paying jobs are the ones that have few common equivalents. These are the jobs that shoulder huge risks, or are so incredibly difficult that no one knows how to do them properly -- or what 'properly' even means in this context. At these levels, people are rewarded, not because they are competent but because they are willing to take on those risks. We're talking about the risk of epic failure; of losing big and committing career suicide; of facing daily public ridicule and disparagement; of losing fortunes, family reputations and possibly their personal freedom if their failure is somehow interpreted as a criminal act; of letting down lots of people who depend on their continued success (which no one has guaranteed). In short, these people are not being paid for being competent, but for their gumption and audacity to take on these risks which we ordinary folk would never dare to even consider.

Ironically, while the top paying jobs are the jobs we prefer not to do, the least paying jobs are also jobs we would rather not do. The "sandwich class" is stuck being competent in our little fish-bowl world.

It's easy to be competent swimming in a little fish bowl, not so if we choose to swim in the ocean. There is potential for much reward out there in the ocean, but it's safer in our fish bowl where we get three square meals a day -- that's it. Maybe we are so competent we can actually solve those big problems we complain about every day, but unless we are willing to take that plunge from frying-pan into fire, don't count on those well-paid people to solve them for us. It really isn't their job to do so.

In short, the way to the best rewards in a Meritocracy is to say "yes, I'll do it!" and take responsibility in situations we have absolutely no experience in; to tackle problems no one (not even ourselves) knows how to solve; and to basically make people believe the impossible can happen. If we don't get it right, or if we screw up, say we are learning from our mistakes and we'll do better next time. It's either that or face the consequences and die.

The Meritocracy our society is today was envisioned by our late former PM, Mr Lee. We are fortunate that when he stepped up to the plate, he faced the impossible and made it happen. Although we paid him well for his efforts, we all firmly believe that he didn't do it for the money. His life was exemplary -- someone who made huge waves abroad, yet kept a humble, frugal, incorruptible personal life at home. He did what he had to because he believed in us. He fought for us; played hard-ball for us; he WAS us to the end.

With his passing, the mantle has firmly fallen on us, the next generation to continue where the previous generation has left us. Now we will we find out if our generation is made of the quality of steel he and his generation were made of. Will we discover that the meritocratic state that hems us in and determines how we are to live does not actually define us? Like him, can we rise above Merit and just do what needs to be done, do whatever it takes because the bigger picture means more to us than our individual whims and fancies? I don't know, but I will say that Mr Lee was an extraordinary gentleman, and  -- I hope -- the likes of whom we will see again in this present generation.

'Just teach'

When I hear calls for fixing the system so that teachers can 'just teach' and not have to juggle administration, CCA, committee work and a myriad other tasks that a modern day teacher is expected to perform, my impulse is to give the complainant a smack and a reality check.

If the teacher's only job was to 'just teach' we're limiting what a student can learn from our one-dimensional existence. In preparing our kids for life, we too have to experience life in all its facets, whether they are to our liking or not. The kids are eventually going out into the world where they are going to face a variety of demands and a job scope beyond 'just work'. So here's a steaming mug of fresh coffee for your somnolent state. Inhale deeply.

Then there are days like today when I'm buried under a host of other tasks besides my timetabled expectations. Feh. All one can do is priortize. Some people will just have to live with disappointment.

Education: one-dimensional no longer, we hope

Schools really do have to de-emphasize academic achievement based on test and exam scores while giving non-academic activities a big boost.

Co-curricula activities (CCAs) hone talent in sport and aesthetics; and provide experience in service-oriented project tasks. Community involvement (if not done in a too-contrived manner) lets kids experience and participate in the real world away from their sheltered, blinkered lives on campus or at home.

If we're worried about the kids' employability think about this: academic certification only ascertains which league a person is eligible to play in, but it doesn't guarantee that he or she will be picked to play on a team. A company in the real world wants an employee who can cope in the real world. Those with talents in multiple fields have the most opportunities as they are those most sought after.

Kids gunning only for academic achievement, your certificate can only prove one and only one ability you have to offer: that you can take a whole year to reproduce a chunk of text from memory. Wow. I'm so impressed. Let me Google up who else can do the same thing in less time...

You have one job!

I am quite perturbed by grown adults who are grads, qualified and certified to work but can't think for themselves without referring to a crutch of a pre-digested template.

Great expectations

We've been lying to our kids. And because the lie has perpetuated for at least a couple of generations already, many of us have also been lying to ourselves. The lie is that the more years we spend in school and the better our grades are, the better we can expect our lives to become.

The assumption makes no sense at all. We spend time in school in order to prepare ourselves. But if our lives are expected to get better, then there's no need to be prepared for it. Who needs to prepare for a life of ease? Of sipping pina coladas by a sunny beachside resort in the Bahamas? In truth, the reason why we prepare ourselves is because we expect bad things to happen. We prepare for disaster. We prepare because our lives are likely to become infinitely worse once we leave the safety zone of our school.

So why has this obviously counter-intuitive lie persisted down the generations? Somehow, people have got the mistaken idea that being in school is the way we pay our dues to society, and that the child's relative present suffering is a way of 'paying forward' a ticket to paradise in adulthood. So when the child finally graduates, he can "[habour] high hope [sic] of a good life afterwards." But it's so disappointing to see his hopes dashed in the face of adult reality.

I don't know the letter-writer personally, but I shall assume that he -- like many other of our graduated students -- has "all the A’s in [his] report card", and yet is unable to find satisfactory employment. I shall also assume that being a straight-A student meant huge sacrifices of freedom and other personal privations in order to focus on his studies and score his A's, all the while telling himself it would all be worth it in the end: a nice, cushy office job; telling the B-graders and below to make the coffee; while the money just rolls in. Because all the hard work was already done in school.

It's hard to face the truth that the shiny, golden academic degree is not the passport to the good life we were told it was. If you've worked hard for it, great! Kudos to you. But the real work begins at the workplace. Sadly, the real work involves everything else you gave up in your earlier life while you chose to mug for your A grades. There isn't a job out there that requires the employee to sit and memorize stacks of notes only to reproduce it all over again a month or six later. Xerox made that job obsolete decades ago. Sorry.

Real work involves having lots of different interests, personal, general and current; in order to be interesting to co-workers, customers and anyone else along the production or service chain. Solo muggers are at a serious disadvantage because collaboration -- i.e., working with others, quirks and all -- is a premium at the workplace. People who can think beyond the manual or even improve it are much preferred to those who can just reproduce it or require it in order to carry out their daily tasks. Workplace problems do not come with their own formulas to apply; they have to be solved with new methods all the time. Workers are comfortable with learning, unlearning and relearning, a concept unthinkable to students of our carefully structured and scaffolded system.

Employable skills are those we pick up when we get our noses out of our textbooks and learn from life itself. We can't say we've visited Rome after reading a Fodor's guide. Likewise.

So why are employers starting to rely on foreign employees? Because foreigners are not as grade-obsessed as we are. They don't view educational qualifications as a certificate of entitlement to a job good or otherwise. It's blinkered of us to keep thinking such because today, every other S'porean grad holds a string of A's, but little else to distinguish one from another. What's an employer to do?

The letter-writer is probably right to call himself a "failed product" of the system and not label the system outright as a failure. We don't have a mass unemployment situation here, so it's likely that most who pass through our system do find jobs. It's these small, unhappy minorities who can't fathom what has gone so wrong for them. I hope his new career coach can help undo the damage his schooling experience has done to him. In the meantime, I'm not going to lie to my kids any more. Never have, actually...!

Dual income

My wife works and I stand to gain more from this financial arrangement between spouses, according to the Pew Research Center. But that's basic mathematics [2(income)/x(dependants) > 1(income)/y(dependants), where y>=x], isn't it?

But my puzzlement is more regarding the question of why when more women are getting an education more men are not, and when more women are entering the workforce more men are losing their jobs? That's what the numbers are implying... or am I reading them wrongly?

Assuming gender bias isn't clouding my judgement, it seems that on the whole, men and women don't like sharing gender roles. When women started moving into once male-dominated areas, the guys quit the field. Whether in education or career, work or housekeeping, the main trends point to an either-or proposition -- one gender occupies one domain, the other gender occupies the corresponding domain.

But it's still too early to see if this revolution will result in a complete reversal of our traditional gender roles. Probably not, I think, but in the meantime I'm not going to be an old-fashioned patriarch about it. My wife works and our combined income makes for a more comfortable lifestyle for both of us than I could provide for myself on my own. Can't see anything wrong with that.

Are you happy at work?

These days, I don't wake up for work with especial dread. Yes, there are days when I'd much prefer to stay in bed 'cos the day looks like it's going to be a long, draining one, but at least now I can step forth knowing I'll actually be missed if I wasn't there. That's stronger motivation than just having to show up at work because the consequences for absenteesm are dire.

My job itself is anything but boring and routine. There are so many opportunities to try on different hats apart from being the elbow-patched drone at the chalk whyteboard. For example, there is such a diversity of CCAs on campus that when we get deployed to look after different activities from time to time, we can't help but pick up new skills along the way. After all, we have to at least look like we know what we're doing if we want our kids to trust that we know what we're doing.

For me, I've had the opportunity to play theatre (and movie!) director and producer, I had to learn from scratch to be a hard-nosed news publisher, and even though I was terrible at debates I still learned to appreciate a good argument. And all that from just being involved in CCAs alone.

Every new hat unlocks new areas of creativity for me to dabble in. Occasionally I amaze myself when some ideas work -- "Admiral" was the one best example of this happening -- though most of the time when I make a mess of things it was because the learning curve was steeper than I had anticipated. But I still gained from the experience, or the attempt anyway.

So the job's ok, I guess. Can't really complain. But to say I like my work would also be to say I like the people I work with. It's really rare to find such a combination of friends among my colleagues with whom we share more than work. We are all very good at what we do, but at the same time, we don't take ourselves too seriously either. We spend time hangin' out with each other, just as much as we have formal meetings planning strategy, curriculum, pedagogy and other concepts represented by big words. But our most important meetings are breakfast and lunch talking about, uh, less consequential things.

Are you happy with your job? You may be good at what you do, no doubt, but if you want to know how happy you are at work, one effective indicator is to see who you go to lunch with.

As it turns out, my lunch partners seem to be dwindling in number somewhat... it's going to be an interesting year.

Too stupid to quit

Hi Selene! In your private comment, you observed that I sound like I like my work, and you wished you could say the same about yours.

First, I have to say that I have had my share of sucky jobs before. I spent years as a mindless corporate zombie, sharpening pencils and pouring coffee for other people. The work itself wasn't tough but it was to me utterly pointless... except for the pencils. Every day I'd wake up feeling that I was just a tiny cog contributing to some bazillionaire's vast financial empire and getting in return little more than a couple of grand a month to "buy something nice" for myself.

Too stupid to quit, too. I would have felt like such a loser to quit (how that philosophy got popular, I'll never know). It took an untimely retrenchment for me to strike out on a different career path leading to where I am today. Which is where, exactly? Wait, let me moralize a bit first. *drags out soapbox to stand on and waggles right index finger pontifically in the air

We don't always find the best match right away. In times like these, we're grateful to have any job at all, sucky or otherwise. While in the grind, we may chafe and whine, but for those of us who pay enough attention, we learn something about ourselves -- our motivations, perhaps, or the kinds of people we prefer to interact with, or the needs we derive most satisfaction in helping others fulfil -- something that will help point us in the direction to go next. 

Next entry: Liking Work

p.s., happy (very) belated Christmas! It's an entry I started and forgot about. Finished it today.