The Bureaucratic Man

A non-organisation man working within a bureaucracy would often miss the fine balance between staff relations and work, and risks compromising the latter for the former. A manager with little experiences in people-oriented leadership positions is likely to face difficulties in moving people, and henceforth, in driving the business forward. The main reason is that he would be less apt in behaving in the right modes to manage the expectations and nuances of human relations, so as to fine tune work coordination and to upgrade the business to higher strata.

Moving people requires a solid grounding in understanding group dynamics. In a simple form, group dynamics is highest with lesser decision-makers. A person makes his own decision and reacts fastest to it; a pair takes a bit of discussion; group warrants more communications, and an organisation would take a longer time for consensus. Group dynamics is about making relevant decisions within a mass of people FAST and putting these decisions into actions FAST. Various measures (e.g. rank and file, compartmentalisation, job decentralisation etc) had been implemented to improve group dynamics in big organisations. The army is a good example.

In the perspective of a small office environment, a key to improving the business lies in the management of staff and of business decisions. This implies that a manager should know how to behave at times of normal operations and of crisis.

• During normal operations, one could be friendly to all so as to smoothen staff-channel workflow, so as to do away with the "by right" hindrance. For e.g., a research analyst who tries to get raw data from a data collector in another department. The data collector could either pass the data to the analyst right away or hinder by consulting the Head of Data Collection for approval.

• At critical times, for e.g., when the ouput volume remains low despite long hours of work, a manager would have to stick his thumb in and address the situation affirmatively. In the same e.g., while the manager may seek opinions, too many are no good. Democracy has to be limited to swiftly put a plausible solution on trial. An authoritative figure is needed.

A non-organisation man would have little difficulties for para 1 with a little guidance and OJT, but for para. 2, he risks not being firm enough to tell others to just do it. He tends to straddle on a solution half-strung between the colleagues' and his. He is stereotypically fickle-minded, runs a high risks of losing focus on the solution and digresses it to human relations. Now ... when things screw up again, what was not optimal? Who is now accountable to the new screw-up? Did giving in to his colleagues' views distort his original views on crisis resolution? Ultimately, despite all nitty-gritty reasons, the blatant fact is - the manager did not come out with a solution good enough to resolve the company's crisis.

In brief, at peace time, one can afford to be friendly; at critical times, lead with a strong rationale, hear limited & selected views, devise a good solution, be firm in the implementation even if it brings frowns to some people's faces.

In a related issue, ever wonder

• why as one climbs higher, one's social circle shrinks?
• why some top leaders are difficult to deal with?
• why the logic behind some top prerogatives differs so much from those of the lower echelons?

I think as managers and leaders are groomed, they become increasingly devoid of human emotions and become more and more result-oriented. These top leaders think operationally & strategically, while the lower echelons think tactically. The differences in the mental models (i.e. logic, result orientation, perception of staff relations vs work etc) between leaders and the lower echelons would generate questions as above. It takes someone with an understanding of this blog entry's content to accept these differences as a common phenomenon in bureaucracies.

PS: When tactical problems have grown to a big magnitude that is not easily detectable by the top, the lower echelons would need an eloquent middle-manager to logically bring the matter up.

How To Write A Business Plan?

This is a magazine article I wrote

A business plan is a document that summarises an entrepreneur’s thoughts and experiences - on his current business, and its prospects for potential investors, clients, suppliers and employees - into a formal scheme.

Why write a business plan? A business plan serves as a communication tool for an entrepreneur and his potential investors. It is a platform for an entrepreneur to manifest his business expansion ideas to potential investors, and it also serves as a visual guide to help the entrepreneur to better understand where he is, where he wants to be and how he plans to get there.

Business plan format. There is no fixed format; there are only recommended ones. Business plans require different formats to succinctly communicate different objectives to different end-readers. In today’s theme, selling an idea to investors, one would need to use a format that most effectively communicates (a) the company’s current status amid a bigger industry and market, (b) the product, marketing and sales strategies, and (c) a realistically projected revenue. Below is a recommended format.

1. Executive summary. Although every business plan starts with an executive summary, it is to be written last. It is a summary that captures the gist of the entire plan. It aims (a) to convince the reader that the investment-seeker has a good understanding of his business, (b) to convey the most important points because this could be the only section that some investors read, and (c) to succinctly highlight the company’s current and projected products, markets, financial performance, recent industry trends, management team, financial projections, and on how one plans to pay back the investors. It is a synopsis comprising the following major components.

• Vision and mission statements
• Company overview
• Product strategy
• Market analysis
• Marketing plan
• Financial plan

2. Vision and mission statements. Vision is nothing without a map; otherwise, it would be called a dream. The vision statement sells an achievable end-state, and the mission statement shows the investors how. In a business plan, the vision and mission statements are combined into a single statement. The vision shows where one’s business is heading. It puts one or two paragraphs on how the business will be like and how big it will be with a realistic long-tem projection over a period of usually five years. The mission describes the strategy, the steps to take and the business philosophy for making the vision happen. A mission statement would answer the below questions.

• How would the business survive, grow and start reaping profits during the expansion period?
• What are the business strengths, vulnerabilities and competitive advantages?
• What is the business’s sense of public image and community standing?
• What is the entrepreneur’s attitude towards its management, investors, strategic alliances (affiliated establishments) and employees?

Definition

• Objective - Specific plan to reach a goal
• Goal - The success target
• Mission - Steps to be taken to achieve a vision
• Vision - The ultimate realistic view of the business

3. Company overview. The company overview is probably the easiest to write in any business plan. It comprises the official company name, its legal form of business (proprietorship, partnership, corporation etc), its location, its facilities, its ownership, the management team (including the board of directors, if any) and the staffing (include special personnel plans and staff enlargement projection). The depth and length of each component (one paragraph per component) would depend on the applicability of the respective contents to the potential investors.

4. Product strategy. This section highlights the current product, the research and development of the current and future products, and the production and delivery methods. The special features of the current product must be emphasised because many other companies also have good products, but good products alone would not churn out opportunities to become businesses. The investors would be attracted to the product developer’s insight, for examples, the factors that would keep the product in the market longer than others, and the unique technology that only the entrepreneur and the investors would own. Below are the highlights.

• Competitive comparison (product life cycle, uniqueness of the product, production technology, delivery methods, research and development etc)
• Sales literature (corporate and product profiles, advertisement and promotion materials, sales kits etc)
• Product fulfillment (how the company handles or intends to handle after-sales services to maintain customer loyalty)

5. Market analysis. The market analysis defines the market, profiles the customers, analyses the competitors and assesses the market risks. Below are some of the issues to think through

• Which market is the product competing in? For example, an anti-ageing sheep placenta extract should be measured up with other anti-ageing health supplements in the market instead of the health-supplement market in general.
• Who are the customers? For example, up-market products meant for the high-income group would require a proper office environment, a professional corporate image to carry out the business.
• Who are the competitors? For example, knowing the aggressiveness and the scale of operations of the closest competitor would create an awareness on the magnitude of effort and of capital to be injected into the business to be competitive.
• What are the fundamental rules? For example, for the sheep placenta extracts to compete in the anti-ageing health supplement market, it must let potential customers know its anti-ageing effects in order to compete in the stated market.

6. Marketing plan. A marketing plan is a combination of a number of procedures to make one’s product known to potential customers. These procedures involve sales, distribution, advertisement, promotion and public relations. Below are the main points.

• Marketing strategy to communicate the combination of procedures, and why the entrepreneur thinks that this is a good mix.
• Sales strategy to lay out who are the intended customers, the sales targets and forecast, price strategy, promotion, sales from strategic alliances etc.
• Distribution method, for examples, direct or indirect distribution, exclusive distribution, network marketing (including multi-lateral marketing), selective distribution etc.
• Advertisement and promotion (commonly known as ‘A & P’)
• Public relations, for examples, endorsement by local authorities, community projects, sponsorship, participation in the Polytechnic internship programme etc.

7. Financial plan. The financial plan discusses sensitive money issues, which are likely to be the top concerns of most investors. These issues include the company’s current financial status, the size of the investment, how would the investments be used, when would be the break-even point, when would ROI (Return On Investment) be positive and the investors’ exit option. The usual components are

• The company’s current financial reports (start-up summary, balance sheets, profit and loss statements for the previous years to now)
• A summary on how and when would the additional capital be injected.
• Based on a sales forecast, when would break-even and positive ROI happen? Use projected profit and loss statements and projected balance sheet.
• What are the investors’ pull-out options?

Producing and presenting the business plan. Now that the business plan had been drafted, the final chore is to produce and present the hard work. During production, ensure that the draft is proofread, typeset and edited before sending for print and binding. The plan should have a cover letter and a content page. Presentation is a must. It has to be a well-rehearsed face-to-face presentation with the written plan or with presentation slides.

Don't Risk Losing Friends. Read This.

Guys usually fall out for women, money and face value, while gals usually fall out for men & gossip. In my experiences, I'd seen these happening countless times.

While we are still sexually active, issues regarding the opposite gender have major bearings in our lives. The loss of [opportunities to] which due to male competition could spell disasters for some. This is especially so for men. Male mammals alike fight for the females. Man being an animal scientifically would engage in the same brawls too. If not for morality, which his intelligence obliges him to understand, he'd have killed more brothers along the way. It's just the animal instinct acting on him ... c'est la vie! However, the sensitivity of woman issues has only a limited effect on him. In a classic example, as a man grows older, he starts to be more interested in the beer than the sexy waitresses. That's when he really ages with a near-defunct libido ... it makes little sense to fight over something less interesting now.

Money as a subject of fall-out is obvious. It won't be discussed here.

Face value is an artificial construct of manliness. The societies put it that the man with the highest face value is the superior male, i.e. the equivalent of the alpha-males in mammal herds. For reasons related to larger access to women and for men's innate thirst for power, we would fight for face.

Gossip is also a relations killer, but it pertains more to women. Some women develop a stronger sense of existence by belittling others. As most women have small groups of friends, the subjects of their gossips usually revolve around acquaintances. If the other parties hear about these gossips (which is usually the case cuz' the women's grapevines are larger despite their smaller social circles), the damages are done. C'est tout!

If one wants to maintain a good friendship, one should try to refrain from getting involved with the above issues. However, there's an exception, i.e. for the enlightened folks who'd been through the mills. In other words, for men/women who had seen it all, who understand the nuances of the above-described, they would have a broader bandwidth to accept reality and not compromise existing friendship.

Why Ah Bengs Are Preferred In Pubs?

Ever wonder why a lot of Ah Bengs* like to go to pubs? The pub owners want them there cuz' they are the big spenders who would spend beyond their means sometimes. They are likely to be regular customers if the pub could retain them in, mainly, two ways - chatty waitresses and accasional perks (free jugs, table reservations, invitations to special functions etc). These Ah Bengs are preferred to the typical crowd in Zouk cuz' the latter wouldn't spend as much as the former for face value. The Zouk crowd just wanna get tipsy and be seen dancing frenziedly. Mr Beng here loves bai tao, and enjoys having waitresses swarming to him to squabble the substance-less (or talk cock). Knowing this behavioral mode makes it relatively easy for pub owners to attract Bengs alike. A chatty & above-average looking waitress, an eloquent manageress, simple follow-ups with calls or SMSes will get these easy targets down.

However, there's a fallback. Our Mr Beng and his own species may not click sometimes, and fights happen. With many fights, the pub's reputation tarnishes in the eyes of pub-goers and the police. Soon, like a bubble gum business, it goes 'biak!'. However, fear not ... a new pub under a different management, perhaps a different name, would re-enact the nightly hoo-hah in the same premise. For some well-known names, they could survive and expand chiefly cuz' they bother to rotate their PR waitresses often; frequent enough to introduce new blood to pump up the Bengs' curiosity.

So, blame not the pub that has Filipino, Vietnamese, Chinese gals or chatty Ah Lians, and is Hokkien spewing. It did it for realistic reasons.

(* Disclaimer: Lians & Bengs are subjective. Here, I refer to people who are louder in expressions, prouder than necessary & rowdier than our average men on the streets.)

True Happiness

I think true happiness can be found in the normal things we do. Our actions, especially those that we had put our hearts in doing, are the building blocks of true happiness. These actions are repeated so often that time, as a fading agent, might have eroded the exhilaration. However, one day, when we look back and consolidate these simple routined applications of our sincerity, we derive true happiness. For example, a man who has taken good care of his elderly father for years would be glad that one day, years ahead, that his ol' pop holds his hands and tells him, "you've been a good son ... ". The inner bliss is beyond words. It's the kind of happiness one gets deep in, without the need to be with anyone or to do anything more.

When In Doubts, Don't Get Married

A colleague once told me, "when in doubts, don't get married". Then, I passed it off as a general comment without feeling its weight. Now, after hearing tonnes of real-life accounts of problematic marriages, I can suddenly feel the bearing of the captioned phrase. No two individuals perceive everything in quite the same way. For lovers, differences in opinions have to be managed lest they could be played up in quarrels when both marry and live (not stay) together. These quarrels may lead to something worse, like an adultery and/or a divorce. Understanding the innate reasons and possible development behind/following these arguments would help couples prevent or mitigate conflicts while both live under the same roof. Below are some of these innate reasons and their potential flashpoints.

(1) Different values. For many years, usually since birth, the man and the woman had been inculcated with different sets of values comprising table manners, views on the balance between work, family & play, adherence to traditions etc. The couple may quarrel over issues like whether one should be quiet while eating, what makes a good spouse, what is an optimal work-family-play parity, what traditions should be maintained & what not etc. In an example inferred from a primary school textbook, if an Eskimo man were to marry a traditional English woman, he would be considered very rude to have belched after dinners. The couple may end in ultimatums over this dining etiquette.

(2) Different family practices. This could be a subset of para (1), or it could be a stand-alone. Practices as previously non-chalant as the way you fit the toilet roll (buck slip below or on top?), how to squeeze a tube of toothpaste (bottom, middle, random?), which cabinet to store what crockery (scientific management?) etc could spark arguments. The potential of developing varying degrees of displeasure over the partner's practices would depend on how strongly the previous families had scorned other practices. For e.g., a woman from an aesthetic family who differentiates crockery in design and colours in the cabinets would be disgruntled by her hubby's straight-face scientific storage of the same paraphernalias, in order, from the most frequently used to the least, in proximity to the wash basin, and vice versa.

(3) Different power relations at home. Power relations revolve around the person(s) with the commanding say in the family. In most families, they'd be the fathers. In others, they'd be the mothers, the elder brothers/sisters who're the sole breadwinners, the richer siblings who're the main income earners, the grandparents who're still kicking and domineering etc. The exposure to domination by different personalities are different. For e.g., a man who comes from a very grandpa-dominant family would be less receptive with a woman's persistence that her alpha-sister should sit with her grandparents-in-law, instead of her other siblings-in-law, in a family-heritage function.

The key to preventing or salvaging the above situations is for the couple to understand that when a man and a woman form a family of their own (for nucleus families only), they're forming another that is different from their previous. The new family would be one that embodies a different mixture of values, different consensual practices and a different power configuration. Receptivity to changes should be heightened. Obstination is a relationship killer in most marriages. Good couples give & take and harmonise on these differences. Rougher couples would take a longer time with a little commotion, but they still work things out. Incompatible couples grow from love to animosity and risk adultery and divorces.

The Different Shades Of Pride

Confucius said, "The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions". Just how modest should a person be? And what is the spectrum of pride?

On modesty, while I think a person should largely be modest, there are situations when he should introduce himself to opportunities by stating or showing his abilities upfront. There is a Chinese idiom, 毛遂自荐, that exemplifies this. The skills lie in knowing when to be modest and when not. However, when so, there would still be others with different or conflicting perceptions, who would render one pompous or haughty. There is probably no out-right solution to this. Furthermore, modesty could be complicated by our Asian "save face" culture in front of our elders, the higher-ranking, the longer-employed etc.

However, on pride, I believe in four broad categories. First being the innately modest. These are people who are very humble and would not exhibit their achievements, or simply, they don't think what they had attained is anything worth publicising at all. Second being the self-respected. They had achieved something and they wanted others to know it for the purpose(s) of sharing their joys and/or to indirectly tell others that they can achieve what he had too. Third being the pompous or haughty. They are boastful, like to show-off and are exhibitionists. They enjoy letting others know their achievements to fill their superior complex. The last category is the worst; they are the ones who pretend to be modest, but want others to know their engineered modesty behind certain deeds. Anyway, Confucius was the one who mooted this fourth category. While one behaves in different pride modes at different time to different people, there is a dominant category in everyone. Which is yours?