勿忘我

As seen on Sammyboy’s forums:

Dec 16, 2006
Don’t knock us, our rice bowls are not iron
Military and civil service high-fliers nearing or past their tenures struggle to keep up in corporate world

By Ho Ai Li & Susan Long

A WELL-KNOWN chief executive of a global company here tells how he receives persistent calls from former scholars who have graduated from Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College.

Some are military officers about to hit 45. Others are from the Government’s elite administrative service, in their 50s and nearing the end of 10-year tenures.

Some are so desperate to ’sell’ themselves that they ask what time he will be in the gym so they can run on the treadmill next to him and make their pitch.

‘It’s very sad,’ observed the CEO, who spoke to The Straits Times on condition of anonymity. ‘In Singapore, above 45, you cannot be looking for a job. The job must be looking for you.’

Things are getting tougher for military or civil service high-fliers nearing or past their shelf life. Previously, most were absorbed by government-linked companies (GLCs) or statutory boards when it was time to leave.

But these days, GLCs - which are becoming more bottom-line-driven and moving from passive asset management to aggressive overseas expansion - prefer to hire those who can hit the ground running from Day One. These would be people with experience in global banking, financial services, mergers and acquisitions, leisure entertainment and customer relations.

Unfortunately, those leaving the military and civil service lack that global perspective and struggle to keep up, say corporate observers and recruiters.

According to human resources consultancy Hewitt Associates country head Na Boon Chong: ‘The challenge has moved from managing a large organisation to helping guide the company through significant industry changes. The latter requires depth of specific industry experience, which retiring civil servants or military officers often lack.’

Finding them a job in the private sector is also a problem. Singapore’s contract manufacturing industry is shrinking and the growth of home-grown companies with pockets deep enough to hire such high-calibre candidates is just not able to keep pace with the conveyor belt of government scholars today. Each year, the public sector gives out about 250 scholarships.

What aggravates matters, said executive headhunter Richard Hoon, is that former military men can be too used to the regimented life.

‘Maybe only one out of 100 can adapt to the corporate world. The rest have to work hard and undergo personal coaching to be ‘demilitarised’,’ he said.

‘They have a certain bravado, talk in a certain way and have a certain mindset that’s not attractive to employers. They used to be officers, always managing others. But stripped of their uniform, they’re just ordinary people with a difficult transition to make.’

Many also lack the soft skills so necessary in the business world.

Outplacement specialist Paul Heng said: ‘Stories are plentiful about ex-civil servants and army officers who behave as if they are still sitting in their ivory towers, giving orders to the troops. Some are downright patronising.

‘They need to inspire confidence in interviewers that, not only can they do the job, but they can also assimilate into the company culture and work well with others.’

The ‘cultural re-adaptation’ process can take months, even years. As such, this group now competes with the droves of other over-40, out-of-work managers looking for work.

Some complain that while the Government exhorts industry to hire older workers, it is not quite walking the talk itself.

In 1998, the career span of military officers was reduced from 27 to 23 years, meaning that those who joined after 1998 would retire at about 42, instead of about 45 previously.

Since 2000, the Administrative Service has ruled that those appointed to Public Service Leadership jobs will have only 10 years’ tenure for each position, such as permanent secretaries, deputy secretaries or chief executives of major statutory boards.

The rationale is to maintain a steady turnover, help the organisation avoid becoming too settled in its ways, and encourage young and capable officers to remain in service and strive for top posts.

What that means, a fast-rising administrative officer said, is that you have to actively work towards your next tenure during your current one.

‘If you get promoted to permanent secretary too early, or something goes wrong, you miss a step and can’t get to the next level. The conveyor belt of scholars relentlessly moves on and pushes you out. And there you are - yet another out-of-job older worker,’ said the officer, who is in his 30s.

His own exit plan? He is banking on regional demand for senior civil servants with deep policy expertise and operational experience.

At 37, another government scholar who is now doing well sometimes worries whether he will be able to survive on the outside in his mid-40s.

‘Honestly, a lot of us have no idea what we can do outside,’ he said. ‘Our rice bowl is not iron or as glamorous as people think it is.

‘I know people think we have it made and are so well-trained that we can easily be absorbed into industry. But it’s a misperception that needs to be corrected because there’s obviously a mismatch between what the public sees and what our potential employers see.’

With the clock ticking away, he has begun finding out how he can get into financial advisory work. He is also managing his expectations downwards and keeping his commitments spare, by not upgrading from his Housing Board flat.

Also cautious is a former government scholarship holder and Cambridge graduate now working as a researcher.

At 45, and having seen the corporate carnage that claimed some of his 40-something peers, he is considering starting a cafe or getting trained to be a masseur.

‘In your 40s and 50s, more than at any other time, you need financial stability. Yet, it’s the age when you’re the most vulnerable,’ he said. ‘There’s a heartless bottom-line economic calculation going on and companies are quite happy to cut you loose.

‘The slippery slope to unemployment can start suddenly. It can be one year, one bad move down the road. The tragedy for scholars is that they have always been on an ascending path. The thought of levelling off or falling down is scary.’

But there are stories of courageous and successful transitions too, like that of lieutenant-colonel-turned-entrepreneur Nicholas Koh, 46.

The former deputy head of naval logistics (platform systems) and navy scholar had the option of staying on till 47, but chose to ‘bite the bullet early’.

In 2002, at 42, he took a smaller gratuity package and left to join ST Engineering as vice-president of defence business.

‘I wanted to get out early and start gaining valuable corporate experience to build my future while I still had energy,’ said the father of two teenagers. ‘I didn’t want to get too used to a comfortable life.’

In 2003, he quit the job that paid around $150,000 a year, took a painful pay cut and set up Victory Knights Management Consultancy.

‘It was my baptism of fire. I decided to fight for it out there. No point looking for short-term havens,’ he said.

His firm administers a marine technology master’s programme offered by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Last year, it also ventured into Oman, where it helps to incubate environmental technology and property development companies.

‘Out there in the commercial world, it’s war. Generals and colonels who are able to fight a war should be able to fight for themselves. If they can’t, they don’t deserve their former rank and status,’ he declared.

‘Public funds have been used to groom them in the past, so they should come out into society and create new ways to contribute back to Singapore’s economy.’

More on this later.

There are wavelengths that people cannot see, there are sounds that people cannot hear, and maybe computers have thoughts that people cannot think. - R. W. Hamming

A postdoc in my group forwarded me the link to this transcript of a talk delivered by Richard Hamming (of Hamming code fame in information theory). Entitled You and Your Research, this 1986 talk draws upon Hamming’s own experiences at Bell Labs in the late 1940s, back when it was world leader in scientific research in many fields, including laying the foundations for computers to exist. Hamming uses anecdotal evidence to talk about how great scientists do great research. It’s highly recommended reading for budding scientists in any field.

Here is my unedited précis of the talk: (I will have to get back to this later)

In order to do outstanding work, one must first want to do it, even if others expect good work to be done only by luck or chance. Fortune favors the prepared mind.

Great scientists have the courage to pursue independent thoughts, to tackle contradictions. Successful scientists have the courage to get stuck, and then be forced to pose impossible questions, and then go forth to answer them.

Great work isn’t about brains. Sometimes brilliance doesn’t manifest itself because of confounding factors such as a lack of confidence.

People often think that good work can only be done young. But early recognition can place one in a position where it is impossible to be productive. Success also breeds a desire to tackle the big, hard problems directly. “When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems… what do you do for an encore?” Once established, great scientists “fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow.”

“It is a poor workman who blames his tools - the good man gets on with the job, given what he’s got, and gets the best answer he can.” The most desirable working conditions (such as having all the resources you want) are not always the ones that produce the best work. Having defects, limits and faults, force great scientists to confront them, change their viewpoint and turn them into assets. They ask why it doesn’t work, then they turn the negative answer into an important result.

Most great scientists have tremendous drive. ” ‘Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.’ Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime.” You also have to end up neglecting some things to get others done.

“Solid work, steadily applied, gets you surprisingly far.” On the other hand, it must be intelligently applied.

“Great scientists tolerate ambiguity very well. They believe the theory enough to go ahead; they doubt it enough to notice the errors and faults so they can step forward and create the new replacement theory. If you believe too much you’ll never notice the flaws; if you doubt too much you won’t get started. It requires a lovely balance.”

Emotional commitment is necessary but not sufficient. One also has to be creative and engage the subsconscious mind to devote it to the problem at hand.

“I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do.” To do great work, one must first know what the important problems in the field are, and evaluate whether one’s current work is leading to something important. Clearly if the answer to the latter is negative, it’s unlikely to become important. However it is vitally important to be constantly aware of them and develop “reasonable” strategies to attack them, and take the necessary risks to follow through. And when opportunities arise, pursue them exclusively and preparedly.

An open door invites distractions, but this occasionally results in clues as to the greater context of one’s work.

Often the real problem is not getting a final answer; it is to prove a point, one that points toward a bigger, more general problem. Solutions to general problems are more important than those to isolated problems.

Scientists often view marketing their work as distasteful, but it is necessary to distract others from their work too and leave a lasting impression as to the importance of one’s work. Good work must be read to get credit. Communication comes in three modes: clear, readable writing; formal and informal talks; and impromptu debates held during talks.

Experience is essential to give a good talk.

Scientists often want to give a highly technical, detail-rich presentation, when most of the audience wants a general survey and ample background. Without a general picture to place the work in contex,, few people in the audience will appreciate its significance.

In the beginning, one may have little control over what one works on, but freedom of choice increases over time. One also has to market one’s ideas to one’s bosses, be it making enough noise to them, or confronting them about a particular issue.

The value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion.

So why do people fail? The most important reason is for lack of drive. Second are personality issues. In particular, scientists are often impatient and want to micro-manage instead of delegating. They end up fighting a system designed to help them. Being nice to one’s secretaries can pay off in tight situations. Another personality defect is ego assertion. Conforming to the expectations of others often makes it much easier to communicate to them at an appropriate level.

Able people don’t get themselves tied up with petty reform of the system; they dabble when necessary and then get back to work instead of getting angry at the system.

To be a first-class scientist, “you need to know yourself, your weaknesses, your strengths, and your bad faults,” and think of how to convert faults into assets.

Sometimes reading too much is a liability. It is more important to formulate a problem reasonably clearly and then “refuse to look at any answers until you’ve thought the problem through carefully how you would do it, how you could slightly change the problem to be the correct one.”

To get around the ‘Nobel Prize effect’, one can periodically make a significant, if not complete, shift in one’s field. Change refreshes and re-stimulates originality.

When one wants to manage a company, one must have a big vision, but one has to give up doing science. But if one remains a scientist, one should stay out of management.