A thought on succession - part 2

Some responses to Part 1 I sent the first part of this essay to several mailing lists and it resulted in quite a number of replies. Two replied in open mailing lists, while others chose to reply to me personally. My writings in Part 1 was meant to highlight two things, viz. (1) succession planning and succession management are important for any organizations; and (2) it cannot work if people refuse to want to be at the top and to subsequently climb up the hierarchy. Two people seem to disagree with my notion that you should want and work to one day be at the top. I want to reiterate that I did not argue for people to want to be at the top for monetary gain. In an organization such as ours, this is certainly unacceptable, at least because the organization seem to not have any money most of the time! What I argued for was for people to ready themselves to be at the top, and to want to be at the top. There is no dichotomy One colleague argued that while we can apply or ask for ‘worldly’ positions, we should not be applying / asking for positions in organizations such as PAS. Working for PAS is seen as a religious (i.e. ‘un-worldly’) task and therefore you should not ask for positions. For this argument to work, one would need to subscribe to the worldview that it is possible to distinguish between what is ‘worldly’ and what is ‘not-worldly’. Working to provide for your family would then fall under the category of ‘worldly’ jobs while working for our organization is ‘not-worldly’ (i.e.: for ukhrawi purposes). Thus you can ask for jobs in order to provide for the family, but asking for jobs within an organization such as ours is unacceptable. If that is the paradigm (i.e.: the ‘worldly’ and ‘un-worldly’ are dichotomous), then the argument is correct and I would concur with that opinion. However, Part 1 was written from the paradigm that does not distinguish between ‘worldly’ and ‘un-worldly’. I was using a paradigm where there is no such thing as a ‘worldly’ task since everything that we do - from going to the toilet to ruling the world - is a form of worship, one way or another. Thus, if one rule applies to working to provide for your family, the same rule applies to working for our organization for both are worship (ibadah). If you are expected to ask for posts that will pay you money, you should also prepare yourselves and ask for jobs within organizations like PAS if you are not given one. I would not say that to distinguish between ‘worldly’ and ‘un-worldly’ is wrong. But it would mean that the perspectives being used are different. And when we use different perspectives, surely the opinion would be different too as we were actually talking in different contexts. Succession planning in PAS I want to now continue about succession planning in PAS. Datuk Nazir Razak, who became CEO of CIMB in 1999, once said that he dislikes the idea of succession planning if it means that people’s progress in the hierarchy is rigidly pre-planned. If person A will only replace person B once person B is gone, then person B’s presence is preventing person A’s progress. And, person A’s development is also rigidly dependent on what happens to person B. This, as Nazir implied, is unhealthy. What really needs to happen is for the organization to create a pool of talented individuals who are always willing and ready to take on new challenges as they arise. The realization that the pool of talented individuals is needed has existed for quite some time in PAS. And these individuals exist aplenty if we were to look at the right places. Young professionals are entering into the PAS circle and these people want to be challenged by their surroundings. The challenges must be coupled with trust and support from the organization. If you have these three factors (challenge, trust and support), then the young professionals will thrive. I have met several individuals who told me that they see no real challenge in PAS related works. I disagree with them on this point. I believe that the challenges are there right in front of us. But trust and support from the organization are still lacking. Let me give one simple example. Let us take a look at the concept of “kepimpinan ulamak”. For many (not all), this concept means that only ulamak can take the helm of our organization. Automatically, this rules out those who did not go through the Islamic education system. And unfortunately many of the younger generations were not formally educated in Islam. Therefore, they are discriminated against when it comes to top leadership line-up. (Before going any further, I want to clarify one point. I do not disagree with the concept of ‘kepimpinan ulamak’. I believe that the concept can work well and it can also ensure that our organization is working within the Islamic boundaries. But, as someone who believes that the concept can survive critical scrutiny, I want to see it dissected, debated and updated if necessary. If we are able to debate and discuss the concept in a frank and open manner, then we can be confident that it will survive the test of time. I for one believe that it will.) Lack of support The current leaders seem to acknowledge that unless something is done, the younger generations will continue to be discriminated against by the concept that they (i.e.: current leaders) once introduced in 1982. There are efforts to prepare the next leadership line-up who have the qualities of ulamak. But these efforts are, at best, haphazard. The schools that we run are by far inferior to other private schools in the country. The madrasahs do not produce people who can manage organizations the size of ours. PAS once established ILHAM but there is a lot that can be said about it now. PAS has usrah and tamrin but even these do not have a properly defined methodology. There are a certain undefined and unwritten expectations about what the characteristics of our next generation of leaders are, but the efforts to instil these characteristics are haphazard. The support system does not work effectively. And it is not infrequent that anyone who starts thinking and / or talking about the need to improve will be asked to produce physical results. This is even more unfortunate because it means that we have failed to distinguish between thinkers and doers. Just because one is a good thinker does mean he is also a good doer. And a good doer is not necessarily a good thinker either. To confuse between the two usually lead to statements like “dia tu pandai cakap saja, bila suruh buat kerja sikit pun tak jalan” or “apasal dia tu buat kerja bagus tapi merancang lemah sangat?” Do not confuse between the two. Remember that a well-articulated proposal is a tangible result in itself. Needless to say, to stay relevant in this new era, there is a need for a change of attitude at all levels. The need for trust Those at the senior party management level should realize that it is time to allow everything, including yourselves, to be challenged. If there are possibilities that the younger generation will one day challenge your position, then what you should do is support them so that one day they will be able to replace (challenge?)you. If the younger generation says that they disagree with you, then you should encourage that disagreement to be debated openly so that the best idea will come out. Most importantly, as you climb the hierarchy, you should ‘un-learn’ the word wala’. Instead, learn the word trust. Learn to trust those who look up to you. Let us at the lower level talk to each other about wala’ while you can rest assured that a capable leader will command our greatest respect, without the need for you to even mention the word wala’. Teach us what wala’ means but also know that imposing it forcefully is the quickest way to lose it. If you trust us, you will get our respect without even having to ask. Aim to be at the top Those at the middle and lower level of the party need to prepare and to want to become the next generation of leaders. If the opportunity is not there, then create the opportunity. If creating opportunities are not easy, then ask to be given new responsibilities and new challenges. The mentality that we do not want to ask for responsibilities / jobs no longer have a place if we were to move forward. “Tiada beban batu digalas” should not be understood as ‘if you do not have any responsibilities, then do not ask for one.’ Rather, it should also be read in the affirmative – i.e. if you do not have any responsibility in the party, then you should ask for it. (In fact, the actual construct of the phrase is already in the affirmative but somehow we Malays managed to transform it into a negative). You should go out there and get the “batu untuk digalas”. After all, the “batu” is always there. Turning a blind eye does not make it disappear. You would simply force others to “galas” it for you. And, if you do not voluntarily offer yourself to take the challenge, then the status quo – the ‘older’ generation – will be forced to remain at their place. If they continue with the ‘older’ way of management – which is not necessarily wrong, just ‘old’ - you have no one to blame but yourselves.