I have recently encountered two discussions that have brought to my attention the connection between leadership in Asia and generations. The first discussion appeared in the Straits Times.  The article was titled China Boom Spurs Demand for MBAs and discussed why MBA graduates are in such demand in China. 

In a nutshell, Chinese companies are pursuing MBA graduates to fill a leadership void created by the “unique circumstances of the Cultural Revolution.”  This great debate was portrayed as an attempt to rid China of the bourgeois elite who may be in positions of authority.  Consequently, many bright people were sent to rural China for re-education and never gained the sort of life and business experience that today’s Chinese corporations so badly need. If companies cannot turn to more senior members of society for leadership, than apparently MBA graduates look to be the next best choice.  The article then discusses a 39 year old candidate for a managing director position who is described as “great…but he’s only got as much experience as a 39-year-old person can have.”

The second discussion took place this past weekend during a program I was teaching in.  The issue was once again how older generations may, in some ways, not be delivering the leadership that this local company needs.  As one of the company’s senior leaders described to me, there is a gap in educational preparation, and this preparation has a direct impact on leadership potential.

Now where have we heard this argument before?  Please see my previous post on Lenovo’s Mary Ma.

The executive went on to say that younger generations are perhaps more broadly educated, and in terms of leadership potential this liberal education positions them to better understand and fill gaps within the company.  At no point have I understood anyone to be saying that older generations are poorly educated or less able.  Instead, the argument is quite literally that the younger folks are being educated differently and more broadly, and this difference helps give the younger folks great potential as leaders who must deliver in today’s globalized, fast-moving, always changing, and more intangible-oriented economies. 

If correct, the generational difference presents a profound leadership challenge.  Will companies continue to import foreign talent (a dirty word in Singapore)?  Will we see more local talent studying and working abroad, which means they may then have to be lured back home (the same way we currently lure foreign talent)?  How do we retain a satisfied and productive team of older talents when they are being passed over for younger candidates?  And of course we have the ethical challenge.  Are people willing to make the tough decision and communicate that other talent (i.e., foreign or more broadly educated) will be sought to fill a particular vacancy?    

The observation I discuss is clearly at the forest level (not the trees), but that does make the issue any less profound.  I hope to learn more about these generational differences and test these initial perspectives.

Well, we just sent out the reminder that Singapore’s Leadership Community of Practice will be meeting on May 24 at Singapore Management University.  I wrote about the COP a couple entries ago, so I won’t be discussing the details.  I am sharing our meeting date because I feel certain some provocative ideas should emerge (and I will blog about them).  We have invited a colleague from an insurance company to share some leadership issues in his organization, and I am sure this will provoke quite a conversation.

Briefly, my mind has been captured by the economic term satisficing.  This word simply means that we are not capable of considering a full range of options for every single decision.  Such a burden would be excessive (in many ways!).  Instead, we tend to satisfice which is a combination of the words satisfy and suffice.  We will accept the first solution which meets our basic needs and then move on.

So far, this is simple enough and quite reasonable.  But let’s move beyond the economic sense of this word.  According to one of my favorite sites, Wikipedia (I am a social media lover….), one may engage in weak or strong satisficing.  Weak satisficing means we go through all the cognitive steps of good, sound decision making but we do so less thoroughly or with bias.  Strong satisficing means that we simply offer an answer that we believe the questioner will find satisfactory, and we do so with no real information integration or strong memory recall.

Now think back to your professional experience and connect these memories to our subject of leadership.  How much satisficing goes on around you?  Certainly some instances will be necessary simply for us to survive.  But how often does it happen around important issues….say, identifying and recruiting talent into your business unit?

The concern, based purely on my personal experiences in Asia, goes even further.  I cannot help but make a mental connection to the group ethos which is so dominant in this region.  From one day to the next, staff will completely change their position because they sense a shift in the group consensus.  When you are externally oriented in this way, there is nothing wrong with changing your position.  It is perfectly normal and important to group membership.

I cannot help but think that, in some situations, this external orientation only services to reinforce the desire for strong satisficing.  When our views shift easily with the ebb and flow of external tides, and we posses a weaker link between internally consistent principles and decision making, then where does quality control fit in?  Of course the quality control in such a situation will come from the group (in these externally oriented cultures).  But if the group is constantly shifting with the tides….Let me just say I am uncomfortable with such relativism.

I think satisficing presents an immense challenge for Asia’s leaders.  I am not suggesting that satisficing does not exist elsewhere.  I am simply asking questions about the region I work and live in.  How do leaders here establish a more principled position that drives the business forward over time?  I don’t know of anyone who says good leadership is about promoting the flavor of the month.  We need aspirations and goals that are more durable and offer some competitive advantage.  So as a leader, we must find ways to inspire people to reach beyond strong satsificing in those situations where the decision is key to the business strategy.  In psychological terms, we need a strongprinciple that remains more or less internally consistent and does not change as easily with the external ebbs and flows.

Again, the war for talent is an excellent example.  Do we simply take the first person who comes along who happens to be good enough or friendly enough?  Or, do we aim higher and say we want to make a genuine effort to find, recruit, develop, and retain the best available?  I find it difficult to believe that satisificing will yield the latter.

As a leader, everything must be in balance.  We must balance those instances where we give way to the ebb and flow of external group consensus while also picking our battles and sticking to principles that drive us forward and inspire us to pursue the best we can deliver.  We must wisely pick our battles with the business strategy in mind, and once picked we must motivate people to move beyond satisficing. 

Leadership cannot be anything less.

I am going to take today off and enjoy this holiday.  As I was skimming my favorite blogs, and relaxing while I caught up on some reading, I came across this blog entry from Richard Edelman.  I thought he had some interesting things to say about senior leadership and I wanted to share with you.

http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/archives/2007/04/two_and_a_half.html

I met Richard briefly on his trip to Singapore late in 2007.  I heard him speak and certainly he is a very wise and capable man who we can learn from.  I hope you enjoy this entry as much as I did. 

I will return to blogging again tomorrow.  There are some great articles in the most recent issue of Harvard Business Review (I am actually starting to enjoy this publication again after severla years of disappointment).  I am particularly hooked on the term satisficing.

 I will write more about that next time.  Happy holidays!

A couple days ago McKinsey put out  fantasic interview with Lenovo’s Mary Ma.  This interview caught my eye because I have, within the past year, become involved with what I consider to be my first true community of practice in Singapore.  The community was started by Norman Munroe of the REACH Group and K.A Chang of SGX (I was the third to arrive after they got the ball rolling).  We gather every other month to discuss leadership issues that face executives in asia. 

Other community members come from a variety of organizatiosn such as GSK, MSIG, Philips, Molex, Invensys, and McKinsey to name just a few.

The overlap I see with the Mary Ma interview is important.  First, Mary is talking about cultural adaptation, in the wake of Lenovo’s IBM acquistion, on multiple levels.  First there is the fit of company cultures and second is the fit of East and West cultures.  Mary goes on to talk about this second point in great detail, and attributes many of the challenges to differences between the education systems and acculturation process.  The effects last into adulthood and now leaders must think about how they can effectively get very different cultures–on multiple levels–to work together effectively.

These points might explicitly be considered part of the traditional leadership turf.  The rest of the article goes on to talk about business leadership.  That is to say, a leadership discussion that is not divorced from the business or operational context.  The interview goes on to get Mary’s views about preparing Chinese companies to compete globally, organic growth versus acquisitions, and negotiating Lenovo’s acquisition of IBM.

I highly recommend the interview.  The folks at McKinsey have given us something to consider as we continue trying to get our arms around the issue of leadership in an Asian context.

If you do not subscribe to the McKinsey reports, my experience is that it is safe to go ahead and register for the email updates.  I have not received a single spam (so far) and the reports are often quite useful. 

These past few weeks I have fallen behind with my readings, but this morning I stumbled across an interesting article while trying to catch up.  In principle, nobody is likely to argue with the proposition that strategy and resources should be aligned.  But such broad statements really do little to help us deal with the day-to-day operational decisions and how each decision can either reinforce or deviate from the larger strategy.

The February, 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review has an interesting article on this very point.  How Managers’ Everyday decisions Create or Destroy Your Company’s Strategyby Bower and Gilbert is a timely read (especially in the wake of the Cairo program I completed a bit over a week ago). 

The article begins with the proposition that, “The cumulative impact of the allocation of resources by managers at any level has more real-world effect on strategy than any plans developed at headquarters.”  Looking past the poor writing style, the idea itself is important.  Without spoiling the article for you, here are a couple of key suggestions our authors make to help you drive strategy further down in the organization.

1.  Know the employee’s track-record before you approve his or her proposal.  In the past, has the person making this proposal demonstrated sound judgment about the future of a business?

2. Make certain your discussion asks two questions.  First, “Should we support this business idea?”  Second, “Is this proposal the right way to go about it?”  Too often we ignore the first question which is the more important one to ask.

3. Use operational managers to get work done across divisions.  This reflects something interesting about change management.  Many times change needs to be driven by people at the top and at the lower levels, while those in the middle (i.e., division managers) can often be points of resistance (due to KPIs, etc).

4. Leaders must connect the dots.  A bottom-up allocation process will not typically produce the same strategy that senior leaders are pushing, so it will be important to step in and connect the dots.

These are just a few of the key ideas.  There are more that I have skipped in the interest of brevity.  You might enjoy looking at the article if you find this overview interesting.  As for me, once again the question about leadership once again presents us with a problem that simultaneously includes the dimensions of communication, people, and execution.  Making our ideas meaningful–on a day-to-day basis for all stakeholders–is one of the major challenges we all face as leaders.  There are no easy answers…it requires a lot of hard work, repetition, motivation, and persistence to succeed.