Malaysian taking office in London instead of Kuala Lumpur


Malaysian set to take up duties as RICS president in London

By LIZ LEE lizlee@thestar.com.my

PETALING JAYA: A Malaysian elected as the first non-British president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) will conduct his duties from the heart of the British political powerhouse in London.

Ong See Lian, who will head the prestigious RICS for the 2011-2012 session, will move into an office in the centre of Parliament Square, overlooking the Big Ben and Westminster Abbey, on July 4.

The 60-year-old quantity surveyor from Petaling Jaya, who beat off opposition to win the post in March, will live in a flat at Vauxhall, South London, with his wife Cheah Yoke Ling.

“It is a modest office, more functional than lavish, but I think my window has the best view of London.

  • Full story in The Star today

Innovation management


http://blogs-images.forbes.com/stevedenning/files/2011/06/light-bulb-on-greenboard.jpg

Because it is its purpose to create a customer, any business enterprise has two – and only these two – basic functions: marketing and innovation.

The June issue of Harvard Business Review is—happily—about one of a business’s two  basic functions: innovation. The cover title is “How Great Leaders Unleash Innovation”. The “Spotlight” inside includes four articles on product innovation:

  • How Procter & Gamble [PG] has gone from achieving 15% of the profit and revenue objectives in 2000 to 50% today by setting up an “innovation factory” (p. 64)
  • How the “ambidextrous CEO” at Misys (and elsewhere) manages the tension between innovation and core products (p.74)
  • How Scott Cook at Intuit [INTU] catalyzed his employees to innovate (p. 82).
  • How Rain Bird (among other firms) discovered hidden gold in its reject pile (p.88).

Three other articles also bear on the topic of innovation:

  • The birth of outsourcing back-office services in India at Genpact [G] (p. 45)
  • How customers can inspire employees (p. 96).
  • How firms can compete against free (p.104).

The alarming state of innovation in business today

The seven articles are presented as illustrations of management excellence and thus exceptions to what is happening in organizations more generally. As it happens, the articles collectively give us an illuminating picture of the normal state of innovation in business today—perhaps even more illuminating than the editors and authors intended.

Before we get to evaluate the recommendations contained in the seven articles (which I will do in later parts of this article), let’s first take stock of what the articles say about the general status of innovation today. In this way, we will be able to see whether the recommendations in the articles are responsive to the problems that business enterprises face today.

The picture is not pretty.

Innovation is consistently assigned low priority

Given that innovation is one of the two basic functions of an enterprise, it is strange to learn that in business today:

“competition for resources and attention usually gets resolved in favor of the established business.” (p.77) (emphasis added)

Innovation is viewed as “an irritating drain on resources.”

Just think about that for a moment. Instead of innovation being one of only two main functions of an organization, in the world of business today innovation “usually” gets no look-in at all. Rather than being the main function of the firm, management is typically hostile to innovation.

For instance, at one company, when the CEO asked his senior executives to prepare a plan for coping with global economic crisis in 2008, their response was a proposal to cut a $3 million investment in disruptive innovation.

Remarkable! Is this unusual? No. As the authors say:

“It’s a familiar story.” (p.75)

In an example from another firm:

“A new innovation emerged: the portable handheld scanner. A small team, several layers down within the scanners unit developed a portable scanner. They believed the innovation would revolutionize the market, but they couldn’t get the attention from managers whose focus was winning market share for the flatbed [scanner].” Then a senior executive “intervened with $10 million of funding to validate the portables business, but within months, the scanners had diverted the funds to plug a hole in its budget. The portables R&D team was left with no funds and no authority.” (p. 78)

And why is that? We learn that

“executives almost always bow to the more pressing claims of the core business, especially when times are hard. Innovations … face an uphill battle to secure a share of the firm’s capital. They lack scale and resources and are usually underrepresented at the top table. At best, the leaders of the established business units ignore such projects. At worst, they seem them as threats to the firm’s core identity and values. Often innovation’s only friend is the CEO.” (emphasis added)

Extraordinary! This is after all 2011 that HBR is talking about, not 1911. This is the world of global competition and whitewater technological change, where innovation is crucial to the future. Future is apparently not management’s problem. It’s the lone CEO versus the entire management structure.

“At the best of times, innovation investments can be painful. Typically success rates are low and returns on investment far from assured. The returns that do materialize moreover rarely do so in the short term. That makes innovation hard to justify when cash is tight—even when everyone knows it’s essential to the long term success.” (p.89)

Where innovation teams do exist:

“most consisted of part-time members—employees who had other responsibilities pulling at them.” (p.71).

Even the CEO often ducks responsibility

And what is the role of our CEOs? We learn that

often … the CEO pushes the key decisions about the right balance between investment in new and core businesses down into the units, ceding much of his or her own power and creating a collection of feudal baronies.” (emphasis added)  (p76).

Amazing! Now innovation doesn’t have a single friend.

Communications are poor and cynicism is pervasive

We learn also that communications are far from open and authentic:

“when leaders attempt to deliver inspiring messages, many employees react with skepticism, question whether leaders are just trying to work harder.” (p.98)

As a result:

“In many companies the majority of frontline employees are cynical about leaders’ motives and intentions.”

The lack of transparency is a two-way street. Following one presentation to the C-suite, one CEO questioned the presenter:

“When I pressed him, he admitted that he didn’t agree with anything he had just said and that he was presenting what he had been told to present.” (p.79).

False assumptions about motivation

This may be because of wrong assumptions about motivation:

“In national surveys, over the past three decades, the majority of American shave identified meaningful work as the single most important feature they seek in a job.”(p.98)

But:

Rarely do executives suggest imbuing the work with greater meaning and purpose. Fewer than 1% say that managers should show … how [employees'] work makes a difference.” (p.98) (emphasis added).

Most executives start from the assumption that employees are ultimate self-interested, proposing performance incentives such as pay increases, promotions, recognition, food and breaks—interventions that… managers had already tried to no avail.” (p.99). (emphasis added)

The problems are systemic

The problems are not just a few individuals straying from the way. The problems are structural and systemic:

“In many companies, innovation units find themselves measured against the performance standards of the core business. This puts the innovation unit at a disadvantage as it struggles to a well-established business that has proven itself.” (p. 79)

The constraints are embedded in the very systems by which firms are being run.

“One obstacle is the profit center structure which makes it impossible to consider a product’s revenues and costs separately. Another is the cost accounting system which is not good for identifying the actual expense of generating new offerings.” (p.138).

It should not be surprising therefore that given these management practices and attitudes

“some think it’s foolish to even attempt to create innovative-growth businesses.” (p.72)

The disastrous results of these management practices

It should hardly be surprising therefore that the results of these management practices are dismal. As shown by Deloitte’s magisterial study of 20,000 US firms between 1965 to 2010,

  • The rate of return on assets is only one quarter of what it was in 1965.
  • The life expectancy of firms in the Fortune 500 has declined from around 75 years half a century ago to less than 15 years and continuing to decline.
  • Executive turnover is accelerating.
  • The topple rate of leading firms is increasing.
  • Only one in five workers is fully engaged in his or her work.

Nor should we really be surprised at the finding by the Kauffman Foundation that between 1980 and 2005 in the US, firms older than five years created practically no new net jobs. Almost all of the 40 million net new jobs were created by firms younger than five years.

And should we really be surprised to find that the US economy is undergoing a series of jobless recoveries, while most people’s incomes remain flat?

The lowly status of innovation today

The disastrous picture of the typical big firm that emerges from these articles is extraordinary:

  • Instead of innovation being regarded as one the firm’s two main functions, management typically assigns innovation low priority.
  • Both CEOs and mid-level managers exhibit pervasive attitudes and behaviors that are hostile to innovation.
  • Innovation receives inadequate resources and staff.
  • Managers do not communicate authentically to inspire staff to innovate.
  • Processes and accounting systems conspire to undermine innovation.

According to the articles, we are not dealing with a few ineffective managers or a few minor problems amid basically sound management practices.

In effect, the problems of innovation are systemic and structural and common to most large organizations.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions

To deal with systemic and structural problems, effective solutions need to be systemic and structural.

For the most part, however, as we shall see in later parts of this review, the recommendations contained in the various HBR articles are based on one-shot actions by individual CEOs or managers. These single-fix solutions deal with symptoms of the problem, rather than the underlying disease.

The apparent short-terms gains from these one-time individual single-fix solutions are unlikely to survive the relentless antagonistic pressure of embedded managerial attitudes, habits, practices, processes and systems.

In effect, the leash from which “Great Leaders” need to “unleash” their organizations is none other than management itself. For innovation to flourish on a sustained basis, individual one-shot actions are not enough. Management itself must be transformed.

Solving The Innovation Enigma:

Logo for Procter & Gamble. Source of the logo.Image via Wikipedia

As noted yesterday in part 1 of this article, the June issue of Harvard Business Review puts a spotlight on product innovation with four separate articles:

  • “P&G’s Innovation Factory”: How Procter & Gamble [PG] has gone from achieving 15% of the profit and revenue objectives in 2000 to 50% today by setting up an “innovation factory” (p. 64)
  • “The ambidextrous CEO”: How the “ambidextrous CEO” at Misys (and elsewhere) handles the tension between innovation and core products (p.74)
  • Intuit’s catalyzing employees”: How Scott Cook at Intuit [INTU] helped catalyze his employees to innovate by hiring a lot of innovation coaches (p. 82).
  • Gold in the reject pile:” How Rain Bird (among other firms) discovered hidden gold in its reject pile (p.88).

The four ideas are presented separately like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that has not been put together.

None of the articles attempts to explain why the typical corporation systematically undermines innovation, as discussed in the first part of this article, namely:

  • Instead of innovation being regarded as one the firm’s two main functions, management typically assigns innovation low priority.
  • Both CEOs and mid-level managers exhibit pervasive attitudes and behaviors that are hostile to innovation.
  • Innovation receives inadequate resources and staff.
  • Managers do not communicate authentically to inspire staff to innovate.
  • Processes and accounting systems conspire to undermine innovation.
  • Organizational structures (“profit centers”) and traditional cost accounting get in the way of innovation.

The articles offer no coherent explanation of the innovation enigma, i.e. why do most managers—highly intelligent, well-educated and well-paid—think, speak and act in a way that undermines innovation and thus the future of the organization and ultimately the economy. In the articles, it  is taken for granted that this is what “often” happens in “most organizations.” It’s the way things are. There is no attempt to explain why this is the way things are. Without understanding why things are this way, the proposed solutions risk not dealing with the real problem.

None of the articles for example explains that these beliefs, attitudes and behaviors reflect a mental model of management that was dominant in the 20th Century and is still pervasive in the Fortune 500 today.

The main principles of this mental model can be seen in most management textbooks and many business school teachings. They comprise:

  • The goal of the organization is to produce goods and services through a supply chain that makes money for the shareholders.
  • The role of the manager is a boss, namely, a hierarchical controller of individuals.
  • The coordination of work is achieved through rules, plans and reports, i.e. bureaucracy.
  • The predominant value of the organization is efficiency, principally by saving money and economies of scale.
  • Communications are hierarchical in nature, through commands and instructions.

The principles are interlocking, so that attempts to change any one by itself will be undermined by the other principles.

These interlocking principles also help explain why innovation has such a hard time in organizations today.

They also explain why the separate innovation ideas in the four HBR articles are by themselves unlikely to provide a lasting solution to the enigma of innovation.

The ambidextrous CEO

Thus the “ambidextrous CEO” (p.74)—who, the article says, is often the “only friend” of innovation in the whole organization (p,78)—will be pitted against the perceived goal of the organization to make money and the role of the managers to get the supply chain moving ever more efficiently. Even if the occasional CEO succeeds in encouraging innovation in the short term, eventually the systemic forces of the mental model of traditional management will cause the organization to revert back to its “normal” mode of operation—grinding out the core products and services to make money for shareholders. Since managers are rewarded for making money in their “profit center”, they will be tempted to focus on making money and neglecting innovation. The chances of a single “ambidextrous CEO” consistently winning battles against this array of systemic forces are low.

The “ambidextrous CEO” is thus likely to be become another management casualty. More seriously, the firm itself will become another organizational casualty as it fails to innovate fast enough for today’s marketplace, where continuous innovation is a necessity.

A single ambidextrous individual is not enough to generate continuous innovation on a sustainable basis. What is needed instead is for everybody in the organization to become ambidextrous in managing the tension between core products and innovation. The article, alas, gives no hint that this might be possible or how to accomplish it. With everything resting on the heroic shoulders of a single individual—the “Great Leader”—the system of traditional management will be the inexorable winner. Systems are more powerful than individuals.

Catalyzing staff

Similarly the excellent idea of Scott Cook at Intuit to use coaches to catalyze staff to get on with the task of innovation through rapid experiments with customers (p.82) may get short term results, as one can see from the rapid rise in share price of once Intuit succeeded in generating continuous innovation to delight its customers.

Over time, however, unless Intuit changes the fundamental assumptions of traditional management, managers, financial controllers and consultants will question the substantial resources being spent on “innovation coaches” (“What’s the rate of return?”) and prove in detailed spreadsheets that the company would be more profitable if it focused more sharply on making money for the shareholders. If the principles of traditional management remain in place, eventually the firm will succumb to the arguments and declare success and fire the coaches so that it can improve the bottom line with tighter control of employees, more elaborate plans, more frequent reporting, and clearer instructions to become more efficient. In effect, the system of traditional management will eventually defeat the individuals trying to do things differently.

P&G’s innovation factory

In the Procter & Gamble article (p.64), we see a more ambitious effort over ten years to graft an “innovation factory” on to the structures and processes of traditional management. Managers of “profit centers” are now assigned new-growth goals. Processes are put in place to achieve the new growth through sustaining innovations, commercial innovations, and sustaining-transformational innovations, as well as disruptive innovations that undermine existing businesses. The processes include training on disruptive innovation, innovation manuals, innovation guides, an innovation college and a FutureWorks division. The impressive results over ten years include a doubling of Tide’s revenues over ten years, new products such as cheap razors for developing countries and even a new-style dry cleaning business.

Whereas in 2000, P&G’s new growth efforts were achieving only 15% of their targets, now they are accomplishing 50% of their targets. The progress is impressive. P&G has doubled its share price over ten years and is doing better than traditional stalwarts like GE, Wal-Mart or Cisco. But this progress leaves open the question: why is P&G only half-way towards meeting its new-growth goals?

The answer is not difficult to detect if one reads the HBR article carefully. The large-scale innovation effort is in tension with the underlying assumptions of traditional management which the article indicates are still largely intact at P&G. The goal of the firm is still perceived to be that of making money for shareholders with each “profit center” responsible for achieving its part of the goal. Innovation is seen as another way of making money. In the “innovation factory”, the managers still act as bosses or controllers of individuals. The work of the “innovation factory” is still coordinated with the familiar bureaucracy of traditional management through “stage gates”, reports and financial targets. In such an environment, it is not surprising that, despite the massive management effort and support, innovation still has a hard time fully thriving.

Solving the innovation enigma: systemic change

What would it take for P&G to achieve 100% of their growth targets? What would it take for firms like Misys and Intuit to achieve innovation on a sustained basis like firms such as Apple, Amazon or Salesforce.com with exponential growth in their respective share prices over many years?

To accomplish these kinds of exponential gains on a sustained basis, single-fix ideas of the kind presented in these HBR articles will not do the job.

Resolving the enigma of innovation entails recognizing that the problem is systemic. To solve it, the solution itself must also be systemic. In effect, the underlying principles of traditional management need to be transformed. Management has to be reinvented.

Reinventing management: five basic shifts

A number of books point to the principles of the transformation of management, including my book, The Leader’s Guide to Radical Management (Jossey-Bass 2010), The New Capitalist Manifesto by Umair Haque, The Power of Pull by John Hagel, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison  Reorganize for Resilience by Professor Ranjay Gulati, The Responsible Business by Carol Sanford, and Leadership in a Wiki World by Rod Collins. There are five major shifts:

“Delighting the customer” is an operational business objective, not some vague, abstract or subjective chimera. Measurement is central.

Individually, none of these shifts is new. What is new is doing them together as systemic change. When only one or two of these shifts is pursued without the others, the change tends to be unsustainable because any improvements are undermined by conflicts with the principles of traditional management.

The tension between innovation & core products dissolves

Once these principles replace the principles of traditional management, it becomes clear why traditional management systematically fails at innovation as well as how the separate and seemingly unconnected ideas of the articles in HBR fit within a coherent set of interlocking management principles. As a result, innovation has the possibility of being sustainable. Innovation is no longer fighting with the firm’s own DNA. Innovation has become part of that DNA.

Specifically:

  • Once the goal of the firm is to delight the customers, the CEO is no longer “the only friend of innovation” (p.75). Now everyone in the entire organization is focused on delighting the customers with a clear line of sight to customers so that everyone knows whether and to what extent customer is being delighted. Innovation becomes part of everyone’s job.
  • Now it is no longer a big deal whether it is the CEO handles “the tension between innovation and core products” or whether this is delegated to middle managers because now everyone in the organization is tasked with resolving the tension in the way that best delights the customer.
  • Now the middle managers are evaluated not just on how much money they are making the shareholders, with the temptation to shortchange innovation to plug holes in the budget for core products (p.78). Now the middle managers are evaluated on whether they are delighting the customers, for which innovation is essential. Merely grinding out the core products won’t get the job done.
  • Because the firm is consistently measuring progress in delighting customers, there is much less temptation for individual managers to divert money from innovation to core products: the impact of any such diversions will be systematically revealed by the firm’s measurement systems.
  • Because delighting the customer is much more profitable in today’s marketplace than grinding out the firm’s core products, there is no longer any tradeoff between innovation and making money. Innovation becomes hugely profitable.
  • Innovation stops being “an irritating drain on resources” or “a threat to managers”, because the goal of delighting the customer makes it part of everyone’s job.
  • Because delighting the customer and continuous innovation are now central parts of everyone’s job, there is little temptation for middle managers to staff innovation activities with part-time assignments, as happens in traditional management (p. 71). When customer delight is the firm’s goal, innovation becomes the most important task, requiring the best people.
  • Because the organization adopts the values of radical transparency and horizontal communications, along with the processes needed to support those values, managers and employees stop saying things they don’t believe (p.79). As a result, impediments to innovation are identified and problems get solved earlier.
  • Because managers communicate transparently and horizontally rather than through top-down commands, the risk of apathy and cynicism is drastically reduced. (p. 98).
  • Because the organization adopts throughput accounting techniques, in addition to rudimentary cost accounting (cf. p. 138), managers can see clearly what how financial resources relate to the goals of innovation and delighting customers.
  • Because the firm sees its mission as delighting customers, rather than making money for shareholders, it looks at its divisions as “customer delight centers” rather than merely as “profit centers”. As a result, the organizational structure doesn’t get in the way of promoting innovation (cf. p. 138).

Coherent management principles for innovation

Once the principles of radical management are adopted, the ideas for innovation mentioned in the HBR articles can be seen for what they are: good single-fix ideas that will only work sustainably if they are adopted as part of a coherent set of management principles that are very different from traditional managment:

  • The ambidextrous CEO who can reconcile the tension between innovation and core products (p. 74) is not a bad idea. It’s just not a big enough idea to resolve the enigma of innovation. For innovation to flourish, everyone in the organization must be ambidextrous. And that will only happen sustainably if the basic management assumptions change.
  • The idea of catalyzing staff at Intuit through coaching to accelerate innovation (p. 82) is a good idea. Self-organizing teams are a central feature of innovation. But by itself, delegating to staff is not enough. For such innovation to flourish sustainably, the goal of the firm, the role of managers, the processes for coordinating work, the values of the firm and the communications also have to change.
  • The idea at P&G of putting in place systems and processes to promote innovation (p.64) is a good idea, but implementation will be hobbled, if the systems and processes are grafted on to the principles of traditional management, which are inherently antagonistic to innovation.
  • The idea of looking through the reject pile to find usable innovation (p.88) is a good idea, but it would be even more powerful if it wasn’t just a one-off initiative, but rather the job of everyone every day. For instance, at Toyota, employees come up with around a million innovation suggestions every year.
  • The idea of using customers to inspire employees (p.96) is an excellent idea, but again, implementation will be hobbled unless the goal of the firm shifts from making money for shareholders to delighting customers, and work is coordinated by dynamic linking so that customer feedback is built into everyone’s job.

Tomorrow, in part 3 of this article, I will talk more on the significance of dynamic linking, and show how it resolves the false dichotomy between chaos and bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy, anarchy & innovation amnesia:

Thomas Edison, half-length portrait, facing frontImage via Wikipedia: Thomas Edison

P&G’s innovation factory

In the June 2011 HBR article on P&G, (p.64), we learn that after ten years of effort, massive investments of financial and human resources, and the strongest possible top management support, Procter & Gamble [PG] has been able to improve performance from achieving only 15% of its new-growth profit and revenue targets in 2000 to around 50% today. This progress is impressive. But the question remains: why after all this effort is P&G still only half-way towards meeting its new-growth goals?

First disconnect: the factory image

P&G is a large old organization (127,000 employees, founded in 1837). It is perhaps not surprising that its leaders set out to build an innovation “factory”. According to the article, it was designed to be a combination of the creativity of Thomas Edison’s industrial research lab (circa 1870) and the speed and reliability of Henry Ford’s production line (circa 1910).

The thinking and imagery are thus early 20th Century in provenance and industrial in nature. The assumption seems to be that the way to succeed in business is to invent something (Edison) and then deliver it (Ford). The thinking is inside-out: “we make it and customers will take it.” The crucial question whether any customer will actually buy your invention is not explicit.

This thinking and imagery were valid for much of the 20th Century when big oligopolies were in charge of the marketplace. But it is out of sync with the 21st Century marketplace reality where there has been a power shift from seller to buyer: the customer is now the boss. The customer now has good information as to what is available and many options to choose from. Whether the firm can invent and build new products has become less important than whether customers will actually buy them. Unless customers are delighted, they won’t.

In practice, we learn in the article that the customer is very much present in P&G’s innovation activities. Thus in addition to the $2 billion spent on research and development, P&G spends “$400 million in foundational consumer research, conducting some 20,000 studies involving more than 5 million consumers in nearly 100 countries.”

There is also a recognition at P&G that “there needs to be an emotional component as well—a source of inspiration that motivates people. At P&G, that inspiration lies in a sense of purpose driven from the top down—the message that each innovation improves people’s lives.”

But when innovation is managed by “profit centers”, it is clear that the message about improving people’s lives is subordinated to the dominant management message: make money for the shareholders.

When a company does one thing, while telling people to do another, the risk of organizational dysfunction is significant. It can lead to the introduction of processes and systems that don’t fit what the work of innovation requires.

Second disconnect: bureaucracy

In fact, the processes that P&G set up to handle innovation as described in the article sound like bureaucracy. The managers of the profit centers are assigned new-growth goals. To help achieve those goals, processes have been put in place that include formal training, manuals, guides, a “robust stage-gate process”, portfolio management, an innovation college, courses on entrepreneurial thinking and disruptive innovation and a FutureWorks division.

Such arrangements provide a sense or order, comfort and familiarity to managers steeped in a culture of 20th Century manufacturing. The arrangements might be appropriate for activities whose parameters and dynamics are largely known and predictable. It is less obvious that they are good fit for the complex, mercurial, inherently unpredictable world of disruptive innovation in the 21st Century, where new business models and platforms are rapidly transforming apparently mature sectors.

This is not to say that innovation can’t happen in a bureaucracy. The experience of P&G has shown some remarkable individual successes. But the fact that P&G is only attaining 50% of its new growth objectives after ten years of massive effort suggests that there is still room for improvement. Whether bureaucracy is the right way to manage innovation is perhaps one of the avenues that P&G management might want to explore.

Genpact: “light a fire and see what happens”

At the opposite end of the spectrum, in the same issue of HBR, there is an account of a non-bureaucratic startup (p. 45). As head of GE Capital in India, Pramod Bhasin tells how he set out in the late 1990s to offer back-office services across GE Capital. He created a division that was eventually spun off as a separate company, Genpact [G], thus giving birth to an entire outsourcing industry.

Bhasin explains:

“I didn’t do any business plan modeling or studies to prove that an opportunity existed. To me it was obvious. I knew that if we could get sophisticated technology to support us… we had the raw talent to offer our services at a small fraction of the cost elsewhere…

We couldn’t just sit down and do the proper analysis to plan it, because this was uncharted territory. We did draw up a business plan, but there was so much finger-in-the-air stuff that I don’t think it had much credibility. We didn’t even know at the start how big the venture could be. We just said: “Let’s light a fire and see what happens.”

Bhasin was ultimately successful in growing the idea into a separate organization with 45,000 employees and sales of $1.2 billion that was spun off from GE. It operates 39 facilities in 13 countries and serving 400 other companies.

Bhasin’s non-bureaucratic approach of “lighting a fire and seeing what happens” was successful in part because of his energy and entrepreneurial spirit, and in part because the nature of the services to be provided was already known and Bhasin had a large existing customer for the services of his division.

Looking across the broader field of innovation today, where the key issue is whether customers will buy the innovation, the approach of “lighting a fire and seeing what happens” has not been consistently successful, as it tends to lead to anarchy. Big investments end being made for products that no one will buy. Since such experiences are anathema in a large organization, organizations tend to re-introduce the controls of bureaucracy.

Often managers often think that these are the only two alternatives: bureaucracy or anarchy. Since the firm doesn’t want anarchy, it is stuck with bureaucracy.

In reality, a quarter of century ago, we learned in the pages of Harvard Business Review itself that there is a third alternative.

What works in innovation: dynamic linking

In 1986 in a famous article entitled, “The New New Product Development Game,” Professors Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka described how a range of firms had been successful in innovation. Some of the examples were in Japan, like Toyota, Fuji Film, and Honda, and a couple were American firms like HP, 3M, and Xerox. They showed how these companies had set up teams that became extraordinarily innovative and productive—without bureaucracy.

Typically the companies set up self-organizing teams. They analyzed the competitive threat and then pulled together a team of their very best people. It was generally a cross-functional team, with people from R&D, engineering, finance, sales, marketing, and support.

They would then give the team a challenging mission. At Honda, for instance, the challenge was to design a car that would appeal to young people and yet be cheap and of high quality. Then they would step back and let the team figure how to make it happen.

At first, the people on the team would be concerned that this was a new form of layoff. After a while, they would settle down and would socialize with each other. And then they would wake up and realize that unless they got cracking, they would never finish by the deadline. So the team would suddenly grasp the urgency of the situation and start to work together.

Takeuchi and Nonaka noted that when this happened, the well-documented phenomenon of self-transcendence within the group would occur. Self-transcendence is a big word, but it simply means that the individuals started to feel that the goals of the team were more important than their own part in it, their own careers, their own preferred position, their prior attitudes. If they were thinking only about themselves—their own goals and their own interests—the team would get locked into suboptimal patterns of work. Takeuchi and Nonaka noted, “A project takes on a self-organizing character as it is driven to a state of ‘zero information’—where prior knowledge does not apply. Ambiguity and fluctuation abound in this state. Left to stew, the process begins to create its own dynamic order.”

The psychology of this phenomenon was described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his classic book, Flow. He wrote about those times in our lives when, instead of being buffered by anonymous forces, we “feel in control of our actions, masters of our own fate. On the rare occasions that it happens, we feel a sense of exhilaration, a deep sense of enjoyment that is long cherished and that becomes a landmark in memory for what life should be like. . . . The best moments usually occur when a person’s body or mind is stretched to the limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile.”

Dynamic linking

Since 1986, the approach sketched by Nonaka and Takeuchi has been developed much further, particularly in software development, in a family of practices known as “Lean”, “Agile”, “Scrum” “Kanban” and “Lean Startups”. See for instance my article: “Scrum is a major management discovery.

These practices, which may be collectively called “dynamic linking”, have in common that (a) the work is done in short cycles; (b) the management sets priorities in terms of the goals of work in the cycle, based on what is known about what might delight the client; (c) decisions about how the work is to be carried out to achieve those goals are largely the responsibility of those doing the work; (d) progress is measured (to the extent possible) by direct customer feedback at the end of each cycle.

In dynamic linking, one meshes the efforts of autonomous teams of knowledge workers who have the agility to innovate and meet the shifting needs of clients while also achieving disciplined execution.

As The Power of Pull points out, one proceeds “by setting things up in short, consecutive waves of effort, iterations that foster deep, trust-based relationships among the participants… Knowledge begins to flow and team begins to learn, innovate and perform better and faster.… Rather than trying to specify the activities in the processes in great detail.., specify what they want to come out of the process, providing more space for individual participants to experiment, improvise and innovate.”

It’s not bureaucracy and it’s not anarchy. It gets the best of all worlds. It has the decisiveness of a hierarchical bureaucracy but without its inflexibility, its rigidity and its tendency to de-motivate workers and frustrate customers. It creates an environment that is radically more productive for the organization, more congenial to innovation, and more satisfying both for those doing the work and those for whom the work is done.

It’s been implemented for over fifteen years in organizations large and small with great success. It’s discussed in detail in chapters 6 and 7 of The Leader’s Guide to Radical Management: Reinventing the Workplace for the 21st Century , along with the specific practices needed to make it operational.

Management amnesia

Intellectual disciplines that advance systematically keep track of the evolution of the subject. Writers are careful to give credit to predecessors, signal alternative viewpoints and demonstrate sensitivity to the evolution of the subject as a whole.

By contrast, in subjects that don’t advance, journals systematically eliminate traces of earlier thinking about the subject at hand. It is as though the articles have “a virgin birth” and emerge into the world without any legitimate parentage.

Thus you could read the articles on product innovation in the June issue of HBR without being made aware of the famous 1986 HBR article, “The New New Product Development Game,” Professors Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka, which paved for the way for the later management discoveries of Agile, Scrum and Kanban, and Lean Startups. There is a lack of historical perspective in the writing.

As a result, P&G ‘s “innovation factory” can be presented as “a big new thing”, when in reality more advanced thinking about innovation was available in HBR itself some twenty-five years ago.

At the same time, some amnesia might be valuable. It could be useful for instance to forget about the romanticized version of the hierarchical bureaucracies of Thomas Edison (circa 1870s) and Henry Ford (circa 1910).

With a suitably clear mind, one could then focus on the world of 2011 and examine how companies like Apple, Amazon and Salesforce.com are getting exponential gains from innovation by radically transforming management.

In effect, the leash from which “Great Leaders” need to “unleash” their organizations is none other than management itself.

See earlier post for more:

Radical management: it’s happening! make more money!

Newscribe : get free news in real time

Lawyer to sue Khazanah for denying son scholarship


By NG CHENG YEE,chengyee@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: A man wants to sue Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Yayasan Khazanah and its director after his son failed to get a scholarship offered by the foundation and the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust.

Lawyer Chan Chow Wang, 67, said he was planning to retire and personally funding son Xiao Yao’s studies would be a huge financial burden.

He also did not understand why Yayasan Khazanah had rejected the application as Xiao Yao had on Jan 5 received a conditional offer for a place at the University of Cambridge.

Yayasan Khazanah works with the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust to offer the Khazanah Cambridge Scholarship to students who have gained admission to the university through the usual application route.

Xiao Yao is scheduled to do his BA Honours degree in Chemical Engineering via Natural Sciences. The course starts in October.

Chan said that when he appealed to the foundation and asked for an explanation for the rejection, all he got was a letter telling him that the competition for the scholarship programme was very stiff.

He added that he would file a suit against the three parties because of the embarrassment, anguish and depression caused to his son.

“I will also lodge a complaint with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and request it to investigate the scholarship programme,” he said at a press conference yesterday.

Chan said the tuition fee for his son’s first-year study was £18,000 (about RM89,000) while the college fee was £4,462.50 (about RM22,000).

“With living expenses, my son will need about RM150,000 a year for this four-year degree programme and it is a huge sum of money,” he said.

Chan said it would be difficult for him to fund his son’s education as he was planning to retire in two years.

He had also funded the education of his four children, including Xian Yao’s education up to A-level.

The great leap forward!


By Ben Blanchard, Reuters

China says no expiry date on Communist Party rule

Looking at Mao’s life, his achievements should be put first, and his mistakes second …

BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s Communist Party sees no reason why it cannot stay in power indefinitely, having made the nation into the envy of the world with its economic success, one of the Party’s top official historians said on Thursday.

Li Zhongjie, a deputy head of the Party’s History Research Centre, made it clear that China will use the impending 90th anniversary of the Party’s founding as a time for rousing pride, rather than reflection on a history that has spanned war, revolution, mass famine and deadly purges.

Under the Party’s rule, China had made leapfrog developments, Li told a news conference, and he said it was foolish to expect any party to want to give up power.

“Over the last 90 years, especially the last 30 years of reform and opening up, we have made major achievements. This is something the world basically recognises,” Li said, ahead of the Party’s anniversary of its 1921 founding on July 1.

“I could ask, ‘Mr. Obama, does your Democratic Party still want to contest the election’? Do you still want to stay in power? They would think that a weird question. Of course our Party hopes to remain in power.

“…Objectively, the issue is rather: how is your rule, and how effective is it? Is it welcomed by the people? Are you running the country well, or into the ground? The Communist Party has built China to what it is today. Many countries in the world are extremely envious. So why can’t we carry on? It’s a very simple question.”

His impassioned answer drew applause from the audience, made up mainly of state media and Chinese academics, with a smattering of foreign reporters.

While the Party’s rule has seen China become the world’s second-largest economy, lift millions out of abject poverty and put men in space, critics say it has come at the expense of individual freedoms, with the Party brooking no dissent.

Under the late Mao Zedong, China went through disasters such as the 1958 Great Leap Forward campaign to catapult it to prosperity, but ended in a three-year famine in which an estimated 30 million people starved to death.

“Objectively speaking, Comrade Mao made some mistakes later in his life, which created major damage,” Li said. “But looking at Mao’s whole life, his achievements should be put first, and his mistakes second … He established ‘New China’ and socialism’s basic system.

“We should ‘seek truth from the facts’ in analysing and researching the lessons from Mao’s mistakes,” he added. “What Mao hoped to do, we should ensure we do even better.”

Pressed after the news conference on whether China would one day set up a public memorial to those who suffered during the Great Leap Forward, or the chaos of the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, Li answered cryptically: “We are making overall plans. It’s being considered.”

But there would be no atonement for the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators around Tiananmen Square in 1989, which the Party these days labels a “political disturbance.”

“We have already reached a solemn conclusion,” Li said. “There’s really nothing more to say.”

(Editing by Nick Macfie)

First China aircraft carrier


Aircraft carrier symbol of China’s naval ambitions

By Damian Grammaticas BBC News, Dalian

It is the most visible symbol of China’s rising military power.

The giant, grey hulk of China’s newest warship, 60,000 tonnes of steel, sits at a dockside in the port of Dalian, almost ready to set sail.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been reluctant to say anything about its first aircraft carrier as it has not yet entered service. But it must be the military’s worst-kept secret. It is there for all to see, somewhat incongruously, right behind Dalian’s Ikea superstore.

The huge carrier has been years in the making, and it is an unmistakeable sign of China’s expanding military and its desire to project Chinese power further beyond its borders than ever before.

“An aircraft carrier is a symbol of the power of your navy,” says General Xu Guangyu, who used to serve in the PLA’s headquarters and is now retired.

“China should at least be on the same level as other permanent members of the UN Security Council who have carriers.”

Gen Xu now advises China’s government on its military modernisation programme. Seven nations currently operate carriers – it used to be eight, but the UK has just withdrawn its last one from service and will have to wait several years for a new one to be built.

“It’s also a symbol of deterrence,” adds Gen Xu, “It’s like saying, ‘Don’t mess with me. Don’t think you can bully me.’ So it’s normal for us to want a carrier. I actually think it’s strange if China doesn’t have one.”

Refit

Dalian is not just a major naval base, it is a major commercial port too. Its docks curve around a huge bay. There is an oil refinery, quays for cargo, and the shipyards where giant cranes tower over the hulls of massive container vessels and tankers under construction.

Size comparison of world aircraft carriers. List of aircraft carriers by country: US 11, Itay 2, France 1, India 1, Spain 1,  UK 1, Russia 1, Brazil 1, Thailand 1

“The development of our armed forces is connected with the development of our economy,” says Gen Xu.

“In energy supplies and trade we now have interests that span the globe. There are vital shipping routes in Asia, the Indian Ocean, Africa, and both sides of the Pacific that we need to protect. So our military strength needs to match the range of our economic and diplomatic activity.”

The carrier is a relatively old design and it was not built by China. It was constructed in the 1980s for the navy of the USSR. Named the Varyag, it was never completed. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the rusting hull of the Varyag sat in dockyards in Ukraine.

As other Soviet warships were cut up for scrap a Chinese company with links to the PLA bought the Varyag claiming it wanted to turn it into a floating casino in Macau. It took several years to finally tow it all the way round the world to China, where it was then taken to Dalian. Reports claim it will be named the Shi Lang, after the Chinese admiral who conquered Taiwan in the 17th Century.

The PLA is focusing on both the navy and the air force in its modernisation, having identified them as relatively weak. When it is launched, the carrier will mark a significant leap forward for China’s navy.

Watching all this closely is the United States. For more than half a century, since the end of World War II, the US Navy has operated its carrier battle fleets unchallenged in Asia and the Pacific. The US has 11 carriers of its own.

The US and China view each other’s military programmes with suspicion. Many in the PLA believe America is trying to encircle it and prevent its rise.

America says China’s military developments are opaque and shrouded in secrecy, its real intentions unclear.

“For the longest time China denied that they were going to pursue an aircraft carrier navy even trying to get the world to believe that the purchase of the first aircraft carrier from Ukraine was all about creating a new casino in one of their harbours,” says Rick Fisher, a senior analyst at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a think tank in Virginia, US.

“[It] is going to have aircraft comparable in capability to the recent fighters on American fighter decks in about two to three years time.”

Shift of power

Some observers believe China wants to build up to four carriers of its own.

Mr Fisher, who has spent 20 years studying China’s military, says it has big ambitions.

China's aircraft carrier is seen under construction in Dalian, Liaoning province (April 2011) (above) and on Google Maps (below) The 300m (990ft) carrier, under construction in Dalian, is thought to be nearly finished

“The aircraft carrier is part of China’s fulfilment of its 2004 historic mission that the People’s Liberation Army will increasingly defend the Communist Party’s interests outside of China,” he says.

“By the 2020s China wants a military that will be globally deployable and will be able to challenge American interests where they need to be challenged.”

Last month the visit of Chen Bingde, the Chief of the General Staff of the PLA, to the Pentagon was trumpeted as an effort to improve long-strained military relations between the US and China.

US and Chinese military bands played together as Gen Chen was hosted in America.

He tried to allay American fears by saying China would never seek to match US military power. China, he said, is way behind America.

“This visit to America, I saw America’s military power, I feel stunned, not only do we have no ability to challenge America, but also the American warships and aircraft, America’s strategy, it’s a real deterrent for us.”

China’s military is generally believed to be 20 years behind America’s in its development. But in its rapid expansion, China is focusing on weapons designed to blunt US military power.

The PLA has invested heavily in submarines. It is believed to be close to deploying the world’s first “carrier-killer” ballistic missile, designed to sink aircraft carriers while they are manoeuvring at sea up to 1,500km (930 miles) offshore, and it is building its own stealth fighter aircraft along with advanced carrier-based aircraft built from Russian designs.

All of these can target US bases, US ships and US carriers in Asia. They will make it much more dangerous for US carrier fleets to operate close to China’s coast, pushing them out further offshore.

In any future conflict they could make it much harder for the US to operate as freely as it would like. That in turn opens up more room for China to flex its own military muscles in Asia.

Having an aircraft carrier will then enable China to project power further than it has before. So looking on with concern are Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, who all have territorial disputes with Beijing in the South China Sea.

And Taiwan, Korea and Japan that look to the US for their security may start to question how much America can really protect them in future. This may, one day, undermine US security guarantees and its influence in the region.

There is much work to do before China’s aircraft carriers become a potent force. But, sitting in the port in Dalian, the carrier is a clear sign of China’s naval ambitions and the shift of power that is likely to bring.

Map

Related Stories

TV Shows, Movies & Music · Show Links TV

US dollar died, debt default is unimaginable, “playing with fire”, creditors say


The Day the Dollar Died


UD debt default is unimaginable

The National Debt Clock next to an IRS office near Times Square, May 16, 2011. REUTERS/Chip East

By Emily Kaiser  SINGAPORE,Agencies

SINGAPORE – Allowing a brief US debt default to force government spending cuts is a “horrible idea” that could destabilize the world economy and sour already tense relations with big creditors, government officials and investors said on Wednesday.

A growing number of US Republican lawmakers think a technical debt default might be a price worth paying if it gets the White House to accept deep spending cuts. This idea, once confined to the party’s fringe, is seeping into the mainstream, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

“How can the US be allowed to default?” said an official at India’s central bank. “We don’t think this is a possibility because this could then create huge panic globally.”

Indian officials say they have little choice but to buy US Treasury debt because it is still among the world’s safest and most liquid investments. It held $39.8 billion in US Treasuries as of March, according to US data.

The US Congress has balked at increasing a statutory limit on government spending as lawmakers argue over how to curb a deficit which is projected to reach $1.4 trillion this fiscal year. The US Treasury Department has said it will run out of borrowing room by August 2.

If Washington cannot make interest payments on its debt, the Obama administration has warned of “catastrophic” consequences that could push the still-fragile economy back into recession.

“It has dire implications for the economy at a time when the macro data is softening,” said Ben Westmore, a commodities economist at National Australia Bank.

“It’s just a horrible idea,” he said.

‘WOULDN’T HAPPEN’

The Republicans’ theory is that bondholders would accept a brief delay in interest payments — maybe a couple of days — if it meant Washington finally addressed its long-term fiscal problems, putting the country in a stronger position to meet its debt obligations later on.

But interviews with government officials and investors show they consider a default such a grim — and remote — possibility that it was nearly impossible to imagine.

“It just wouldn’t happen,” said Barry Evans, who oversees $83 billion in fixed income assets at Manulife Asset Management. “They would pay their Treasury bills first instead of other bills. It’s as simple as that.”

As for China, Washington’s largest foreign creditor with $1.14 trillion in Treasuries as of March, a default could fray political and economic ties.

Yuan Gangming, a researcher with the government think tank Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, smelled some political wrangling behind the US debt debate as the 2012 presidential election draws nearer and said Republicans “want to make things difficult for Obama.”

But with time running short before Treasury exhausts its borrowing room, Yuan said default was a real risk.

“The possibility is quite high to see a default of the US debt, which would harm many countries in the world, and China in particular,” he said.

China warns U.S. debt-default idea is “playing with fire”

By Emily Kaiser

(Reuters) – Republican lawmakers are “playing with fire” by contemplating even a brief debt default as a means to force deeper government spending cuts, an adviser to China’s central bank said on Wednesday.

The idea of a technical default — essentially delaying interest payments for a few days — has gained backing from a growing number of mainstream Republicans who see it as a price worth paying if it forces the White House to slash spending, Reuters reported on Tuesday.

But any form of default could destabilize the global economy and sour already tense relations with big U.S. creditors such as China, government officials and investors warn.

Li Daokui, an adviser to the People’s Bank of China, said a default could undermine the U.S. dollar, and Beijing needed to dissuade Washington from pursuing this course of action.

“I think there is a risk that the U.S. debt default may happen,” Li told reporters on the sidelines of a forum in Beijing. “The result will be very serious and I really hope that they would stop playing with fire.”

China is the largest foreign creditor to the United States, holding more than $1 trillion in Treasury debt as of March, U.S. data shows, so its concerns carry considerable weight in Washington.

“I really worry about the risks of a U.S. debt default, which I think may lead to a decline in the dollar’s value,” Li said.

Congress has balked at increasing a statutory limit on government spending as lawmakers argue over how to curb a deficit which is projected to reach $1.4 trillion this fiscal year. The U.S. Treasury Department has said it will run out of borrowing room by August 2.

If the United States cannot make interest payments on its debt, the Obama administration has warned of “catastrophic” consequences that could push the still-fragile economy back into recession.

“It has dire implications for the economy at a time when the macro data is softening,” said Ben Westmore, a commodities economist at National Australia Bank.

“It’s just a horrible idea,” he said.

Financial markets are following the U.S. debate but see little risk of a default.

U.S. Treasury prices were firm in Europe on Wednesday, supported by a flight to their perceived safety on the back of the Greek debt crisis and worries about a slowdown in U.S. economic growth.

Marc Ostwald, a strategist with Monument Securities in London, said markets were working on the assumption that the U.S. debt story “will go away.” But nervousness would grow if a resolution was not reached in the next five to six weeks.

‘WOULDN’T HAPPEN’

The Republicans’ theory is that bondholders would accept a brief delay in interest payments if it meant Washington finally addressed its long-term fiscal problems, putting the country in a stronger position to meet its debt obligations later on.

But interviews with government officials and investors show they consider a default such a grim — and remote — possibility that it was nearly impossible to imagine.

“How can the U.S. be allowed to default?” said an official at India’s central bank. “We don’t think this is a possibility because this could then create huge panic globally.”

Indian officials say they have little choice but to buy U.S. Treasury debt because it is still among the world’s safest and most liquid investments. It held $39.8 billion in U.S. Treasuries as of March, U.S. data shows.

The officials declined to be identified because they are not authorized to speak to the media.

Oman is concerned about the impact of a default on the currency reserves of the sultanate and its Gulf neighbors.

“Our economies are substantially tied up with the U.S. financial developments,” said a senior central bank official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“It just wouldn’t happen,” said Barry Evans, who oversees $83 billion in fixed income assets at Manulife Asset Management. “They would pay their Treasury bills first instead of other bills. It’s as simple as that.”

Monument’s Ostwald called the default scenario “frightening” and said bondholders’ patience would wear thin if lawmakers persisted in pitching this strategy in the coming weeks.

“This isn’t a debate, this is like a Mexican standoff and that is where the problem lies,” he said.

Yuan Gangming, a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government think tank, smelled some political wrangling behind the U.S. debt debate as the 2012 presidential election draws nearer and said Republicans “want to make things difficult for Obama.”

But with time running short before the U.S. Treasury exhausts its borrowing room, Yuan said default was a real risk.

“The possibility is quite high to see a default of the U.S. debt, which would harm many countries in the world, and China in particular,” he said.

(Reporting by Kevin Lim and Jong Woo Cheon in Singapore, Suvashree Dey Choudhury in Mumbai, Aileen Wang and Kevin Yao in Beijing, Abhijit Neogy in Delhi, Marius Zaharia in London and Umesh Desai in Hong Kong; Editing by Dean Yates and Neil Fullick)

Newscribe : get free news in real time

TV Shows, Movies & Music · Show Links TV

Ghostbuster can’t heal busted hearts


By WINNIE YEOH winnie@thestar.com.my

GEORGE TOWN: Ong Q Leng might be an accomplished spiritual healer and ghostbuster but some people seek her help even to solve problems brought unto themselves, especially marital problems.

But Master Ong, as she is better known, says these are problems she cannot solve.

“Marital problems require the individuals involved to find a solution. Some women told me their husbands used to love them a lot but later had mistresses.

“I told them they needed marriage counsellors. There are no spirits involved,” she said.

Fighting the fires: Ong showing a sign which she used to chase away the djinns from Zainab’s house in Kelantan.

Ong, 34, offers services of healing, spiritual cleansing, feng shui tips and general consultation to her clients.

As a little girl, Ong used to be scared out of her wits by ghosts that delighted in disturbing her, knowing that she could see them clearly through what is believed to be her “third eye”.

Her fright even caused her to stutter and by the time she was 11, she was so fed up of being frightened that she started “scolding the spirits and threatening them not to bother her”.

In June 2007, while she was working as a sundry goods sales representative, she knew through her sixth sense that she was destined to help people.

She then healed her 84-year-old grandfather, who was suffering from testicular cancer, and went on to help more people and her enthusiasm grew along with her success.

The most recent case was when she helped 73-year-old Zainab Sulaiman from Kelantan to chase away the evil djinns that caused hundreds of small fires at the latter’s house.

Zainab made a trip to Penang on Sunday to express her gratitude to Ong.

The widow, who lives in a wooden house in Kampung Penambang Bunga Emas near Kota Baru with her daughter-in-law and two grandchildren, had been plagued with mysterious fires which destroyed over 250 articles of clothing, mats, curtains, mattresses and many other things.

At least five paranormal experts had attempted to exorcise Zainab’s house since late last year till January a bomoh, a Thai medium, an American couple who practise exorcism, a group of Muslim ghostbusters, and Ong.

Ong added that some parents also sought her help with their children’s studies. She said she could help by changing their names as that would bring improvement in some cases.

“A person’s name is very important and it can affect one’s whole life. In everyone’s life, God decides 50% of our fate when we are born while the rest depends on our choice.”

Because of her young age, Ong said she was often “challenged” by other masters on her skills.

“I have received calls and visits by people pretending to be sick but I know their intention. We should be helping the needy instead.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: