Tag: ADAM CHAN

Any transaction in FOCUS Adventure starts with the incoming inquires from prospective clients. Inquires can stream in by different channels like, phone calls, emails through referrals and captured by online form. Regardless the incoming channels, all the information will be recorded in a standard way, i.e. the OPTIONS form. The form aims to elicit clients’ learning needs. Briefly, the OPTIONS form is,

Objectives refer to things like learning outcomes, purposes, etc.
People refer to group size, demographic of participants, special physical needs, etc.
Time refers to amount time to be invested, date and time of the proposed program, etc.
Investment refers to the budgeted funds for the impending program
Other considerations refers to less common items like special dietary needs, physical conditions of the learner, critical coordination with other agencies, etc.
New Ideas offer an opportunity for the clients to become creative. Some experienced clients could transfer some brilliant ideas from previous programs that might work well for the impending program.
Site refers to preferred venue for clients.

Clients who contact us through phone would have all these information filled up by a project staff but those who visit the website can complete the online OPTIONS form. Suffice to say that with the information, drafting the first-cut proposal would be possible. Once the inquiries are recorded, they will be distributed to the respective project staff as main contact points. Also referring to the OPTIONS form, the suitable facilitator can be selected to represent FOCUS Adventure for subsequent engagement activities.

The appointed project staff would engage the clients by initiating a meeting. Meetings are not restricted by in-person. It can be carried out via tele-conferencing or video conferencing. At the first contact (meetings or tele-conference), the facilitator would walk through the OPTIONS form to clarify with the client for any discrepancies. The walk through process will also help to surface new needs which were not conceived of at the point when the OPTIONS form was being filled up.

The outcomes of those meetings should provide adequate information for the program developer (facilitators/trainers) to develop the program. Sealing the deal within one meeting is possible provided the requirements are straightforward. When dealing complex learning issues, more than one meeting may be needed. Eventually, the project staff will send the completed proposal to seek for clients’ inputs and approval. If necessary, subsequent meetings can be initiated. Once the clients have approved the proposed program, the required resources would be secured.

From the helicopter view, the OPTIONS form represents the starting point of the Learning Needs Analysis (LNA) of the business of the process. In order for the programs to be considered suitable, it is essential for LNA to be carried out at the onset of the inquiry. The information captured by the form when being used properly in program design can produce desirable outcomes for the clients.

From the training perspective, it is useful for new Projects partners to step onto the steep learning curve. The form provides an adequate coverage for any new Projects partners to start serving the clients without having to learn through the arduous process of trial and errors. Using the form as a guide, reasonably accurate information can be obtained. As mentioned, just from the OPTIONS form, we do not expect 100% coverage. However, it can certainly help to generate an initial draft to maintain the interest of the inquiry. One of the key reasons is respond time to the clients. Even if the initial proposal sent is not totally customized, it does create an impression that FOCUS Adventure is paying keen interest in the inquiry. That is important from customer service point of view.

More from the training aspect; Senior Projects partners can evaluate the competence of the new Project partners from the entries made onto the OPTIONS form. This can serve as a consistent gauge when measuring progress and competence of the new Projects partners.
Click this link to see the online OPTIONS form:
http://www.focusadventure.com/contact-us/

In an experiment, four monkeys were placed in an enclosure. In the enclosure, there is a pole. Atop the pole were some juiciest bananas waiting to be grabbed by the monkeys. Indeed, with no hesitation, the monkeys started scaling the pole for their pricy rewards. However during their climb, they were doused with a cold stream of water from the top thus preventing them from getting to the bananas. Monkey likes water slightly more than cats. That how much they would enjoy the splash. In the end, none climb the pole anymore.

In the next stage of the experiment, the scientists removed three monkeys from the enclosure and introduce another three new monkeys that were never splashed. The new monkeys responded to the bananas immediately in the same way which first batch had. The first monkey has seen and felt the cold water; with all his might he prevented the three new ones from climbing the pole. He shouted, growled, pulling legs, jumped up and down, etc. In the end, the three new monkeys even without experiencing the splash of cold water, they did not climb the pole again and they were not soaked.

In the final stage of the experiment, two monkeys were removed and three new ones were introduced. In the enclosure, there were two existing monkeys. One which has seen the water and the other has not. The three new ones responded to the bananas immediately, jumping onto the pole at the first instance. One of the existing monkey that was not splashed previously by water nor has seen the water, bared his teeth, shouted, jumped, growled at the three new monkeys, prevented them from climbing without knowing the reasons behind it. Eventually, no monkey gets to eat the bananas.

What is the connection between the monkeys, bananas, pole and water to corporate culture? Our beliefs are subterranean a.k.a. iceberg beliefs or more commonly known as assumptions. We think of assumptions are the by-products of iceberg beliefs. Most people are familiar with our assumptions but are not discerning about our iceberg beliefs. It takes some willingness and effort to discern its existence and its potent effect it has on our cognitive development. As stated by BF Skinner, humans can be conditioned both positively and negatively. Operant conditioning is the most popular behavioral phenomenon discovered by him in the 60s which set forth the school of behavioral science in the field of psychology.

The monkey story above has demonstrated the definite effects of conditioning coming from external stimulus that has reinforced, changed, altered, transformed, inculcated, influenced, etc the behaviors of the monkeys, to be precise, their beliefs. This can be true for humans too. The facts in the monkey experiment have such uncanny similarity to the works in any organization.

Senior staff members can easily influence the new comers in both the good and the bad manner; this is one parallel aspect between the story and reality.

New comers adapt and live the existing culture with no discernment, following suit for the sake of compliance, in a total blinded manner.

Conditioning is potent as the effect it exercises on us is unobtrusive and subliminal. Conditioning can be premeditated too. Both constructive and destructive results can be achieved by understanding the mechanics of conditioning. Like the movie Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibilities. Leaders, Head of departments, CEOs, Directors have the authority and opportunities to do so. With or without the knowledge of conditioning, they are exercising it daily in both verbal and non-verbal communication occasions. Let’s understand its power use it wisely both at work

Source:
The Resilience Factor by Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatte, Chapter 12.

The paradox of “Ship in the harbor is safe, but that is not what it was built for” is pervasive in the way when every leader are confronted with tough issues, stretched decisions to be made, and communicating the unpleasant news.

Risk is never exclusive from learning. One can never learn to be proficient without making mistakes. What about scholars and brilliant academics? Do they make mistakes too? Nothing can be further from the truth; they do. However, nobody says we have to announce the mistake we make to everyone. Inadvertently, everyone will make mistakes but not everyone learn from it. Individuals who welcome the challenges brought about by changes and see it as excitement is likely to succeed in overcoming these challenges.

If we are going learn, we should be prepared to be wrong. Otherwise we would never learn. A parable of ski trainees and instructor;

The essence in the parable tells us about taking risk whilst learning. Making mistakes is part of learning. In the corporate world, making mistakes can mean stalled in career progression or even termination. In the sporting arena, mistakes can mean losing the pinnacle. In mountaineering, making mistake can mean life and death. So how can we promote the attitude of taking risks that lead to learning? Another parable about mistakes and innovation;

Is the parable about making mistakes or being innovative? To make sense of the parable, we ought to examine the connections between making mistakes and innovation. Once we are able to discern the connections, we can then relate it to learning. Perhaps we should ask ourselves does innovation means making mistakes or inadvertently learning comes with making mistakes? Firstly, kids don’t know about making mistakes let alone feeling the social pressure of making mistakes as a cardinal sin. In fact most kids would not even care if they got it right. As long as they are not held back by what is right or wrong, they will give a go at any questions posed by adults.

As we grew from childhood to adulthood, we learn from the world and certain worldviews are etched within us. The knowledge we gained enable us to function in the world, create significance, make progresses, etc. By the same token, the knowledge could become stumbling blocks to what we want to achieve in lives. These stumbling blocks are often intangible, linked robustly to the each person’s worldviews. The link; could very well turn into major barriers that stop us from moving forward. Much like the parable of the girl who draws GOD, she did not carry such “links”, she simply draw GOD as what she deemed fits. However the teacher possessed the notion of “nobody knows how GOD looks like” that inhibited her from understanding how the girl thinks. Perhaps she can never think like the girl.

So what is the connection between innovation and making mistakes? It seems like making mistake is innovation or to innovate is to make mistakes. Perhaps there are risk components in the innovation process too. What is paramount is the attitude rather the ability. If we are not prepared to be wrong (an attitude), we would never derive anything original (an ability). Isn’t it? In an environment where mistakes are stigmatized, innovation will not survive.

In summary, when we are learning, inadvertently we make mistakes; mistakes are results of taking risks and to innovate is about taking risk. The connections between learning, mistakes, innovation and risks are strong yet elusive. So the next time should you ski, do remember to take a fall.

                                                                                                         Is Multi-Tasking also Parallelism?
                                                                                               Multi-tasking may not be what it seems to be.
                                                                                                                           by Adam Chan

The Urban Myth – Multi-tasking?
The phrase “multi-tasking” is commonly used by corporate executives and managers who are perpetually laden with huge amount of tasks to be achieved in parallel hence the implied responsibilities and the impending rewards should successes are obtained. It seems like a great sense of accomplishment awaits any corporate executive or manager if many high value tasks are carried out in parallel. After all, any company leader would yearn for such executives to undertake all the tasks he or she has in mind. Have you met one yet?

In everything we set forth to do, we would think about the process it takes to achieve our desired outcomes. It is easy to understand that with quality thinking it would lead to quality actions hence quality results. This phrase implies the importance of thinking and it suggests that with inaccurate thinking, unlikely any quality result can be expected. Would you agree?

During the pre-information era i.e. before the birth of internet, humans are merely connected through telephone, in-person meeting or writing letters. There is little chance of two persons living thousand miles apart to know of each other existence, let alone becoming friends. Their lives are simple and that may imply they have less tasks to perform but each task would probably take a longer time to complete.

Today, we can be chatting with someone in the cyberspace without the need to know the respondent’s real identity. Making friends (connections) has taken on a brand new meaning. The purpose of chatting has transformed surely. The internet also allows us to perform numerous transactions that we would normally need to schedule time to attend to them in the past. Going to the bank and shopping are two perfect examples.

Although the internet has provided these apparent convenience, did it generate more time in our hands? Have you ever been caught in a situation where you need to pay bills over the internet, i-chatting with a friend, downloading some stuffs, typing an email, browsing ebay for cheap deals and navigating through Amazon for the best buys? Finally you are done with all the transactions, chatting, typing and searching but you discovered that your dirty laundry is still dirty, the morning’s newspaper is in its original delivered state, the oil on your dishes has turned in sludge or you have no more pressed business shirt for tomorrow’s meeting. The key difference between life in the past and modern city living is we now have more tasks to perform and with the help of technology, each task suppose to take less time. How well do you think the city dwellers perform in multi-tasking?

What is Multi-tasking?
I would like to present two anecdotes that are totally different but they appear to converge at the essence of suggesting what Multi-tasking might be.

The first anecdote; let’s look at the central processing unit a.k.a. CPU. This term is known as the brain of the computer system. The most illuminated feature of a superior CPU is its ability to compute numerous operations simultaneously. This non-negotiable feature is fundamental and expected and consumer will not part with his or her money unless this is fulfilled. Would you purchase a computer system that computes the operations one at a time?

Interestingly, here’s what Wikipedia says about computer’s mutli-tasking.

“In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn. The act of reassigning a CPU from one task to another one is called a context switch. When context switches occur frequently enough the illusion of parallelism is achieved. Even on computers with more than one CPU (called multiprocessor machines), multitasking allows many more tasks to be run than there are CPUs.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
Have we all bought wrong computers or we simply started off with some common but inaccurate assumptions (thinking)?

The second anecdote; we will now examine a famous performing act, juggling. The phrase multi-tasking is synonymous with the act of juggling. Let’s see if everything actually happens at the same time and space?

Wikipedia says this about juggling.

“Juggling is a physical human skill involving the movement of one or more objects, usually through the air, for entertainment (see object manipulation). The most recognizable form of juggling is toss juggling, where the juggler throws objects through the air. Jugglers often refer to the objects they juggle as props. The most common props are balls, beanbags, rings, clubs, and bouncing balls. Some performers use dramatic objects such as chainsaws, knives and fire torches. The term juggling can also refer to other prop-based circus skills such as diabolo, devil sticks, poi, cigar box manipulation, fire-dancing, contact juggling, hooping and hat manipulation.

The word juggling derives from the Middle English jogelen to entertain by performing tricks, in turn from the French jongleur and the Old French jogler. There is also the Late Latin form joculare of Latin joculari, meaning to jest. “Juggling” has come to mean, colloquially, any activity which requires a constant refocusing of one’s attention from an overall goal to multiple subsidiary tasks, for example “Juggling Work and Family”, the title of a PBS documentary. This colloquial meaning is similar to the non-computer use of the word multitasking.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling

In the act of juggling, the objects to be tossed spend a regular duration in mid air and also a regular duration in the hands of the juggler. Let’s view the balls as tasks we wish to accomplish. Each landing in the juggler’s hands means the task has made progress and the balls in mid air simple mean task progression is halted until the next landing. Does it make sense to perceive that task progression is happening at any and every moment of the juggling act? Chances are the juggler would miss catching all the balls if he attempts to catch two balls with a single hand. At any point of time and space, there is only one ball in one hand of the juggler. This metaphor of one ball one hand is pretty obvious in defining multi-tasking.

Although CPU and juggling are two very different subjects but they appear to possess similar metaphor when relating to mutli-tasking.

What about human multi-tasking? Along our education and career path, someone told us that we humans can do many things simultaneously and there is value in this ability.

Here’re another excerpt from Wikipedia on human multi-tasking.

Interestingly, here’s what Wikipedia says about computer’s mutli-tasking.

“In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn. The act of reassigning a CPU from one task to another one is called a context switch. When context switches occur frequently enough the illusion of parallelism is achieved. Even on computers with more than one CPU (called multiprocessor machines), multitasking allows many more tasks to be run than there are CPUs.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
Have we all bought wrong computers or we simply started off with some common but inaccurate assumptions (thinking)?

The second anecdote; we will now examine a famous performing act, juggling. The phrase multi-tasking is synonymous with the act of juggling. Let’s see if everything actually happens at the same time and space?

Wikipedia says this about juggling.

“Juggling is a physical human skill involving the movement of one or more objects, usually through the air, for entertainment (see object manipulation). The most recognizable form of juggling is toss juggling, where the juggler throws objects through the air. Jugglers often refer to the objects they juggle as props. The most common props are balls, beanbags, rings, clubs, and bouncing balls. Some performers use dramatic objects such as chainsaws, knives and fire torches. The term juggling can also refer to other prop-based circus skills such as diabolo, devil sticks, poi, cigar box manipulation, fire-dancing, contact juggling, hooping and hat manipulation.

The word juggling derives from the Middle English jogelen to entertain by performing tricks, in turn from the French jongleur and the Old French jogler. There is also the Late Latin form joculare of Latin joculari, meaning to jest. “Juggling” has come to mean, colloquially, any activity which requires a constant refocusing of one’s attention from an overall goal to multiple subsidiary tasks, for example “Juggling Work and Family”, the title of a PBS documentary. This colloquial meaning is similar to the non-computer use of the word multitasking.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling

In the act of juggling, the objects to be tossed spend a regular duration in mid air and also a regular duration in the hands of the juggler. Let’s view the balls as tasks we wish to accomplish. Each landing in the juggler’s hands means the task has made progress and the balls in mid air simple mean task progression is halted until the next landing. Does it make sense to perceive that task progression is happening at any and every moment of the juggling act? Chances are the juggler would miss catching all the balls if he attempts to catch two balls with a single hand. At any point of time and space, there is only one ball in one hand of the juggler. This metaphor of one ball one hand is pretty obvious in defining multi-tasking.

Although CPU and juggling are two very different subjects but they appear to possess similar metaphor when relating to mutli-tasking.

What about human multi-tasking? Along our education and career path, someone told us that we humans can do many things simultaneously and there is value in this ability.

Here’re another excerpt from Wikipedia on human multi-tasking.

                                                                                                      Hiring Myth: Ability versus Suitability
                                                                                                                         By Adam Chan

If you ask any Human Resources (HR) Department why they are hiring people to join the organization, you will receive common responses like, to fill up the vacancies, as part of expansion plan, new functions creation, etc. These are indeed corporate jargons; they presented the obvious reasons for hiring but did not address the crux of the matter. It is liken to the notion of “Live to Eat”. The notion has relegated the need for eating to one which takes a secondary status. We all know that eating to stay alive is a primary need. However, few would prefer to spend time and effort to discern the roots of the matter. Perhaps it is not obvious to our conventional intuitive thinking.

So what are the real reasons for hiring? The obvious reasons are the causal factors or triggers for the hiring process to take place but hardly the real reasons. Locating the right focus will result in the right approach. Instead of seeking for the real reasons, HR practitioners should seek for the right focus and approaches. It is like the saying, perfect practice makes perfect. In the past, hiring is usually the conventional process in sifting through resumes, interviewing the applicants and eventually concludes the hiring process with the “selected applicant”. Below are some hiring approaches being used widely.

However the buck doesn’t stop here. So where does the buck stop? To address this question, it can be as easy as ABC or it can be as complicated as the theory of relativity. Some say when the position is being filled. Some would argue that results or productivity within a fixed timeframe of the new hire as indicators for a success hire.

Staying with one company to materialize one’s career aspiration is in the past. In today’s volatile society, the presence of head hunters created a new trend. A trend that alarms many HR practitioners; i.e. protecting their talented workforce from these head hunters has never been more critical.

It is common to rely on the impression generated by the resumes as the initial filter. With a few rounds of interviews, it will seal the process. Like in the West, ability of the applicant is everything that is needed as selection criteria. It doesn’t matter if the person is difficult work with, as long as he or she delivers. It was the proven way to go, therefore ability should receive prime standing as the right focus and evaluation will be right approach.

Sifting ability alone; is it adequate to determine if the hiring decision is right? It was probably true a decade ago especially in Singapore but in today’s volatile job market and the presence of head hunters, the former hardly holds truth anymore. This notion has been augmented by the emphasis on finding the “perfect fit” echoed by many recruitment firms. It is all too obvious that ability alone doesn’t give a perfect fit.

What is the mysterious criterion other than the evaluating ability?

In the book authored by three HR gurus, namely Ulrich, Meisinger and Losey, titled The Future of Human Resources Management suggested that a shift in hiring trend in recent years where the “West Meets East” is emerging evidently. It emphasizes on the how well the person “fits” with the corporate and company values and how well the person gets along with others. The shift can be seen in the methods of hiring are being employed in recent years. This shift is not a local trend but a global one.

When one quits, usually he or she usually doesn’t quit the job but the boss or the colleagues. What is the implication to hiring from this aspect? It could very well point to the relationship between the boss and direct reports. The value trust, is the bedrock value that binds everyone to a common vision, impel employees to commit and stay engage at work. In the absence of trust, disengagement from work sets in. It will lead to low productivity, sub-standard results, prone to making errors, distrusting among co-workers, eventually to resignation or termination.

Absenteeism, a by-product of disengagement, in a 2004 survey (HRM magazine, issue 4.11) conducted by Robert Walters, Singapore topped the survey over other countries like NZ, Australia, UK, etc by an astounding 23.8% of the respondents admitted that they will take sick leave but none of them are really sick. Is it ability or suitability? Is it due to relationship issues at work or competency in performing the assigned work? This is a telling indicator to any HR practitioners that the hiring process deserves a second look.

Another global survey in 2004 released by the Conference Board (HRM magazine, issue 4.9) posted to 539 CEOs around the globe, asking for their top ten concerns. Employee loyalty/commitment/job satisfaction was cited as of greatest concern by 32% of the CEO in Asia. Sufficiently telling, the concern is hardly about competency.

Disengagement, absenteeism and CEO’s greatest concerns; what have these factors got to do with the right focus and approaches to hiring? Although they are not the sole determinant for wrong hiring decisions, surely the discussed factors tell us about the implications of wrong hiring and also the need for tighter hiring filters. As echoed by many recruitment firms, finding the “perfect fit” is both art and science. It is obvious assume that “art” refers to soft facts like getting long with one another, one’s value system, etc.

Multi-national corporations (MNC) are investing enormous amount of resources in their hiring process. Knowing too well that a wrong hire will result in considerable loss of time and money, the effort was focused in revamping the hiring process to focus beyond their past work achievements. The applicants are subject to other challenges that demand for their interpersonal skills and surfacing their value systems thus the hiring process captures valuable observable evidence beyond one’s ability. Some companies went to great length in the selection process by staging selection camp that last for days, compacting multi-disciplines challenges in order to observe the applicants’ in different critical dimensions. Group interview processes can be effective in observing interpersonal attributes that are desired by the hiring parties and it is widely used too.

Companies with niche business focus like adventure learning have unique selection processes to capture the right candidates. Major airlines have been known to include character development as part of pilots’ new entry training. Gains from such training are intangible to the organization which is difficult to measure. However it still being recognize as essential.

While there isn’t one water tight hiring process that would fit all companies and the applicants they seek, it would be unwise to rely only on the conventional interviewing process to determine the human capital investment. The hiring process should be equipped with means to surface interpersonal attributes for the hiring managers to observe. Some companies even make efforts to quantify such attributes to create consistency in observing such intangibles. By introducing mechanics to identify the desired interpersonal attributes, it serves as an additional layer of hiring filter thus making the overall hiring process a tighter one. With tighter hiring filters it will likely lead increase the chances of getting the right fit. In the sense, suitability is the right focus and identifying the desired attributes is the right approach.

Is it “ability versus suitability” or “ability and suitability”? With the right focus, with the right approaches for hiring, finding that impetus to make the hiring process worthwhile will never be easier.

Finally, hiring it is not just evaluating ability alone, suitability of each applicant is as critical if not more. While having a sound selection process to evaluate ability is liken to the saying of practice makes perfect, making sure that there are mechanics to identify the suitability would be like perfect practice makes perfect.

The Myth of Productivity

What we know of productivity is its direct relation to company performance. A highly productive workforce would almost guarantee good company performance although it may not be necessary true for all situations. However, the positive correlation between productivity and company performance has led us to believe and act on it. After all, which Boss doesn’t yearn for a highly productive workforce? The reality is all but ideal.

To attain high productivity is not about chances and luck. The desire must be strong enough to drive the needed actions to get there. It is easy to guess that the path towards high productivity will not be plain sailing. Inherently, there will be obstacles.

The next logical thing to do is to remove the obstacles. At least most people would agree to that, right? However, I would like to get you to think about the term used herein; obstacles. How do you recognize the obstacles? How do you know that these are the obstacles?

Peter Senge’s suggested in his book, the Fifth Discipline, there are eleven natural laws in this world he called system. The eightieth law states, “Small changes can produce big results, but the areas of highest leverages are often the least obvious.” Recognizing these small areas as leverages to create big results doesn’t come natural to us. What are leverages exactly? Leverage is a noun by English language. It can be tangible or intangible. It can be as tactual as the fulcrum of a see-saw you see in any playground. Or it can be as abstract as applying the right strategy in conducting marketing initiatives. In a nutshell, leverages are ideas, insights, decisions, comprehension, revelations, etc. we obtained through experiencing a given situation that require some actions to address it. These leverages are areas where the biggest impact can made when addressed.

What has obstacle got to do with leverage? In the pursuit for high productivity, it is usual for any company to have a plan or strategy to do so. The strategy would be translated into daily activities carried out by various functions in the company. Making conscious effort to align these activities to the strategy set forth is critical in ensuring success in executing the strategy. Suffice to say that the pursuit would not be without obstacles. Naturally people would remove the obstacle. Invariably, that is provided they can recognize the obstacles to start with. Wanting to remove the obstacles is undoubtedly a good intend but can we effectively identify which obstacles to get rid of? The search for the right one to remove is the search for leverage.

If a certain workgroup identifies the presence of some rifts in their working relationships, which one should be dealt with first? Interpersonal issues are filled with subtleties. These issues are usually implied and subterranean by nature. This makes recognizing them difficult. Much energy is required to detect them.

We are pretty confident to say that fractured working relationships make the workers unhappy. Disgruntled workers are no productive workers. Naturally the company performance will slide southwards. Can sound business strategy alone turn the south-bounding productivity around when the workforce is disgruntled?

If we can agree that sound business strategy is not effective against rifts in working relationships, we would have to identify the critical obstacle to focus on. However, it is not easy to determine the critical obstacle. This is similar to the concept of leverage. Hard to determine but it is the most effective mean to adopt. I hope at this point, the myth of productivity is adequately addressed.

In the following sections, I would like to discuss on those subtleties, often embedded within interpersonal relationships and in what way we might trigger a chain reaction without the consciousness of the subtle act. I will term such subtle acts fanning the flames.

Potential Flames

As emphasized in the opening section, interpersonal issues are filled with subtleties. I will attempt to illuminate some areas of potential where such interpersonal issues often lurk in subtle layers that are beyond our consciousness. If you find these anecdotal illustrations uncannily familiar, likely you are involved or you have observations that offer support to its existence.

Overstepping Territory

In any common dictionary, territory is defined as a region marked off for administrative or other purposes. As we rose through the corporate hierarchy, we gain in both knowledge and competence. Along with it comes the authority to make decisions and influences. Invariably, authority offers us options. So what do we do with the options at hand?

Being overwhelmed by the options generated with greater authority can lead us to take options that we perceived as essential. However that is far from the reality. In the aspect of interpersonal relationships, there can be situations where authority is exerted merely because of preferences. Such acts can undermine the receiving end’s effectiveness tremendously. Apparently the exerted authority seems legitimate but over time, the involved team members would detect discrepancies in the act as compared to the team’s implied operating principles or their values. The existence of such act of overstepping territory can be further supported by the diminished returns of business results.

Delegating Responsibilities

In all business related matters, delegating responsibilities is done to achieve optimization in handling business operations and initiatives. When one delegates, it implies the intent to develop the delegate as well. The receiving end of the responsibilities should have the readiness to handle the challenges with adequate parameters being communicated. Empowerment is thus achieved.

Imagine if you’re given a task to take over as chairperson of the regional meeting when the only experience you ever had was to sit in a section meeting. Should this act of delegation be viewed as an opportunity for your personal development?

In the quarterly regional meeting of a local SME, the Human Resources (HR) department was tasked to organize the entire event. Needless to say that the human resources will have a segment in the meeting to provide updates to the regional business heads. At the eleventh hour, the Group Human Resources Manager called the HR department and informed the rest of the team that he was unable to turn up for the meeting. The buck was passed to an Asst. HR manager who only covers local operations. No opportunity was offered to this Asst. HR manager to study the presentation slides and the chairperson of the regional meeting wasn’t informed of his absence. Was that delegation?

An account manager is due to make a presentation to the clients but was not present at the venue of the presentation. Inevitably another account manager has to step in to fulfill the responsibilities with very little knowledge of the account. The outcome should be predictable, isn’t it?

Making promises and commitments to the clients and only to pass the buck to other colleagues who have little or no knowledge of the entire initiative and expect exceptional results is not only demeaning, such act also contains all required ingredients to derail the interpersonal relationships between team members.

Fabricated Truths

How many times have you heard of the truth? I am not sure about you but these days, truth is a rare commodity or it may be extinct in the corporate setting. In the courtroom you can hear many versions of fabricated truth, don’t you? What about in the daily interactions among team members? You can assure of its existence and its enduring effects too.

By now, you should know that the term fabricated truth is an oxymoron. It has its roots stemmed from the sense of insecurity. To feel insecure, one must perceive that loosing one’s standing or assets is inescapable. This will set off the defensive mechanism in us. One of the ways to guard our perceived threatened well-being is to fabricate truths to misdirect the attention to others.

Our minds are responsible in informing us of what we perceived from the world. Even the perceptions may not be necessary what is reflected in the world; invariably we would be told by our minds that the perceptions are the reality. Unless we challenge the authenticity of our perceptions, we will find no anomaly in our perceptions.

For people who are influenced by sense of insecurity would naturally set up a defense mechanism to allay their fears. Chances are these people would not be conscious of the fabricated truths they have used for defense. This unconsciousness results in those small acts of flame fanning. It can take place anywhere, anytime via any communication means. Unless the perceived reality is debunked, such acts will persist and propagate. To others within the circle, they might be influenced by this small pervasive act. You can imagine the capability in spreading. Is it not a chain reaction? By informing the insecure individuals the potential rifts that are brought about by such fabricated truths may help to keep it at bay.

Putting Out The Flames?

If you witness a flame burning within your workplace, the immediate action is to put out the flame, right? The aftermath created by flames is wide-spread damages. By putting it out doesn’t prevent damages. It only reduces the amount. Putting out flames is a reactive approach. Unless we tolerate damages, we should avoid taking the reactive approach.

No wind no fire. If we raise our awareness in detecting these subtle interpersonal issues, there might be no flames to put out at all. To prevent is always better than cure. Beyond prevention, teams should strive enhance the interpersonal relationships. A healthy heart never fails.

As a personal effort to enhance interpersonal relationships, we should never fan the flames by committing those tiny acts mentioned in the previous section. No doubt they are subtle in nature, we should not allow them to creep in and exercise their effects on the workforce to undermine the overall productivity. Nobody wants to be in a non-performing team. However, not everyone is conscious about the acts which are contributing to the non-performing status of the team. Hence, we can be puzzled by the anomaly of achieving diminished business results even the business strategy was sound.

Don’t fan the flame ….

There are various climbing activities commonly used in adventure learning programs. The classic High Elements like postman walk, balancing beam, etc and some other innovative climbing apparatus that have evolved over years of adventure programming for example the Peak Ascent of Outward Bound Singapore and the Team Challenge Pyramid of Focus Adventure. Both are unique in their design and operating principles however both offer participants unforgettable learning experiences in various value related aspects like increasing self-efficacy, the significance of teamwork, etc.
Conducting climbing activities are not difficult; perfection in covering the safety aspects in the form of briefing can be attained through rehearsal and practices. After all, the value of any adventure learning activities hinges on the reflections from the participants a.k.a. debriefing. The following sections discuss in depth the different debriefing methods applied on climbing activities.

The Classic High Elements

The High Elements have a founding place in adventure programming. Conceived at the pioneering stages of adventure programming, it has a profound effect on the evolvement such programs.