God bless Malaysia

Yesterday's (October 30th, 2006) mainstream newspapers quoted a few politicians (UMNO) views regarding Tun Dr Mahathir's future in UMNO. Following the reports, surfers (e.g. Amri, Khoiriyah & Kamri) asked me about the recent development of Malaysian politics, the Mahathir-Pak Lah's episode, in particular. Indeed, it is not a pleasant and interesting issue to debate for some reasons. Some say that the politicians (who issued the statements) are not known for their intellectual/political insights. They became leaders simply because they were picked by the party to run in the general or by-election. In Malaysian political culture, except for one or two personalities, leaders depend much on the party's logo. Transformational leaders, then, are not common. The Deputy Prime Minister's (Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak) view on the leadership of all Malaysian prime ministers, perhaps, provides simple description of the types of head of administrator/politician in this country. His view was reported by NST, “At the right time and the right place”, September 21, 2005, p.6.

Tunku Abdul Rahman

When the Tunku led the independence movement and subsequently became the first premier, his diplomatic skills being an Anglophile helped reassure the British that granting independence to Malaya was the right thing to do. “To be given freedom without bloodshed is far greater an achievement than with the spilling of blood over the flag of independence.”

Tun Abdul Razak Hussein

He toiled the fields and put into place a major economic and societal reform – a reform that was to transform a community and a nation. “The father of Development was not only a visionary leader but a leader who had great empathy towards the people. He gave us hope and raised the stakes for all to be successful.”

Tun Hussein Onn

He was needed to carry out the agenda that his predecessor had put into place. “He was the rightman for the job. Just imagine, if Malaysia had a leader who was ambitious for he could have merely dismantled this social and economic reform and replaced it with something else, thereby disrupting its implementation.”

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

With the passing of a decade of the New Economic Policy, the country needed a leader who could elevate Malaysia’s sense of achievement. Dr Mahathir was that man.“He was unique, for he was both a visionary and a man of action. He was an iconoclastic leader, someone who challenged prevailling ideas and beliefs.”

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Abdullah has become the country’s fifth Prime Minister at a most significant period of the nation. With the increasing pressures of globalisation, stronger demands for a more open and transparent economy and business environment, Abdullah’s rise to the top was timely.”

Defining organisational culture

Updated, October 3nd, 2006, 0817.


Jaques, E. (1952:251) defines OC as, "The culture of the factory is its customary and traditional way of thinking and doing of things, which is shared to a greater or lesser degree by all its members, and which new members must learn, and at least partially accept, in order to be accepted into service in the firm."

To the question "What were the reasons for the emergent of literature on 'corporate culture'?", we can simply trace back the writings of many scholars, e.g. Peters & Waterman (1982) and Pascale & Athos (1994) who popularised and coined the terminology. The reasons were:
1. The successes of management in 'strong culture' societies, e.g Japan & Korea;
2. Shift of mindset & managerial aspects, e.g. "soft" over "hard" i.e soft (culture, leadership etc) while hard (systems & technology);
3. Strong 'adaptive culture'; and
4. Culture is superior than bureaucracy.
---------------------------------------------
I received a question from Dzul (he was asking me about Van Maanen & Barley's (1985) definition of subculture).

They define subculture as "a subset of an organisation's members who interact regularly with one another, identify themselves as a distinct group within the organisation, share a set of problems commonly defined to be the problems of all, and routinely take action on the basis of collective understandings unique to the group."

(Updated: Sept 28th, 2006, 10:04)
Huntington, S.P. talks about clash of civilications in Islamica (latest edition).

What makes a leader II

Leadership is all about being in front, be it in the form of a physical body or simply in the shape of soul and philosophy. Thus, a true and an effective leader often goes well beyond followers. Otherwise, might as well he remains a follower...

Ever heard of an Arabic proverb, which is so nicely written, such as this one?
"An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep."

What makes a leader?

Some of the traits of good leaders have already been mentioned elsewhere. Since Khoiriyah was speaking about a leader's trait that is often observed as negative - i.e. easy to get angry - this saying, which I quoted from one of many Aristotle's sayings, perhaps answers her question pretty well.“It is easy to get angry—anyone can do that…but to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way—that is not easy, and it is not everyone that can do it. Hence to do these things well is a rare, laudable and noble achievement.”

Motivation 1

Originally derived from the Latin word 'movere', which means 'to move', the term "motivation" covers various components and processes associated with how human behaviour is activated. Definitions, such as those posited by Atkinson (1964), Jones (1955) and Vroom (1964) are examples of representative definitions that indicate how the term has been used.

Schein's levels of culture

The three levels of culture as advocated by Schein (1985) perhaps can best explain the differences between organisations: Artifacts - which is visible but very often, undecipherable; Values - greater level of awareness; and Assumptions - taken for granted invisble.

Further, Schein listed & discussed dimensions of cultural assumptions which include: (1) organisation's relationship; (2) the nature of human activities; (3) the nature of reality & truth; (4) the nature of time; (5) the nature of human nature; (6) homogeneity vs diversity.