MAKING THE BEST USE OF OUR TIME

Thinking back when I was in abroad, say in North America, the UK or Hong Kong or Singapore, if the CEO of a company wants to see his Vice Presidents (VPs) or subordinates, he had to check their appointment books, unless it was an emergency. I can remember times when the VP told the CEO off that he had a prior commitment and cannot be there when the CEO needed him.

Here in most parts of Asia, particularly in Indonesia, VPs and other senior managers don't seem to be as responsible to their Profit and Loss accounts than showing up whenever the CEO or a VP or a director beckons. There lies the most crucial difference in cultures between East and West.

In the true system of accountability, each VP, director, manager or head of department has to be responsible for the results under his purview. If he/she has to be called into a meeting which doesn't contribute to the financial results of the department or division under him/her, he/she would have said "no" for he/she will have to answer to a fair appraisal at the end of a specific period - with all things taken into account, not just that of showing up whenever the boss' secretary calls.

Here it's different. If the boss calls you and you won't or don't want to show up, even though you're doing something more worthy or important to the results of the company than attending a trivial meeting or briefing, the boss remembers that. They won't remember that you're making money for the company and hence contributing to the returns and results under his purview; but they will surely remember you giving them a snub(s).

Why is that so? Perhaps because we Asians look upon not showing up when called upon as an expression of "dissent" or even "insubordination" rather than one of efficiency or making the best use of our time. Surely, all executives of a company must work for the interests of the company as the directors - who hired the executives - will have to account to the shareholders at the end of the year/quarter in terms of the Profit and Loss account etc. So why would these directors expect their subordinates to forego the pursuit of results and objectives of the company - the objective these directors set and are supposedly there to safeguard - just so their subordinates can be there at their whims and fancies?

I've seen these in may corporations, whether they are family businesses or multi-nationals listed on one or more stock exchanges.

The boss calls, and you have to dump whatever you're doing and stop all your efforts in earning money for your company and its shareholders, just to attend to that call. Silly isn't it.

Do they realize how much they're losing by doing so?

What that results in is an ad hoc management system and structure. All their staff and support partners or vendors become stuck in a limbo when they're at a lost as to what's important and what's not.

Tyrannies as portrayed in films like "The devil wears Prada" are Hollywood's portrayal. In the real world, unless you're running a small town magazine, that kind of management won't work. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the adage.

I had a few meetings with a multi-national corporation these last few days regarding a project we were doing to - supposedly - help them sell their services and achieve improved results. But, to my horror and surprise, the key personnel involved in this project were hardly available in those meetings, leaving only the ones who cannot make decisions and who are not privy to the high level discussions at board level to sit in.

Nothing substantive transpired in those meetings. We needed to appease the middle managers and executives who were there just because their bosses wanted them to be at those meetings. But no decisions on our project were made which will enable us to move on and proceed with the project and do the jobs we've all been paid to do. In other words, they're paying us for not doing the work which we had quoted to do, but to sit around and wile away our time.


So why would a multi-national corporation be wasting millions of dollars paying their CEO, directors, VPs and managers when they're not there to perform what they are paid to do - like managing the company as a start? Why are they been paid to sit around in non constructive meetings which yield no returns to the shareholders of that company.

They are not much different from the maids in my house who only earn a tiny fraction of their salaries. They are told to be where the boss wants them to be, just like my maids. My maids never had to worry about my income and expenditure, just like these supposedly executives seem to do. I push the bells and the maids show up, no matter what they're doing, just like these executives do.

Imagine the money these corporations could have saved if they were to make more efficient use of their executives' time? Probably enough to charge us consumers less and yet make a healthier return for their shareholders and have spare cash to donate to the various charitable causes to help the impoverished and the handicapped certainly.

Common guys. Enough productivity is lost in traffic woes, among others, caused by incompetent bureaucrats. Must we in the private sector contribute to this wastage of valuable economic resources?