1. Emotional fortitude is not something I’m born with, rather it’s something I’ve to continuously work on. I guess the quiet leadership book, the short chats that I need to have with myself to maximize the interval between input and outcome, will have a good reference to continually improve this aspect.
2. Emotional fortitude should follow principles and beliefs. And as much as these are non-negotiable, the over-riding programme should be one that carefully analyses any benefits, good, to overcome deviations, mistaken beliefs, misguidance. This is where the opening up of channels with the Most Powerful comes in. As long as this channel remains closed and no effort is done to open it, the threat of being misguided becomes very real and very urgent.
3. This is where this current discordance and conflict comes in. While chugging along becomes an issue when coasting along is too self-limiting, then pushing the boundaries becomes an issue when I see things that I cant influence and I cant agree with. And in the end, a different conflict arises when I become unable to assert my beliefs nor able to resolve the discords.
4. I’ve seen a lot on how the private sector works, influencing key stakeholders, asking for beneficial treatment (I loathe to use kickbacks here), the all-too ready public sector hierarchy to please selected personalities and people, to know that in Malaysia it’ll be very difficult to change the system. In that respect, I’ll have to place on record the very professional and elegant way of my organization doing its work in working within the system to benefit its only shareholder and main stakeholder.
5. In this respect too, the key personalities that I work with are very “powerful” people in their ability to leverage influence, either through charm or through sheer weight of argument. The flipside to this is my anathema to using personal influencing behaviours and my belief in letting the truth win its side of the story, or getting the “truth” revised to reveal a more powerful truth. At this point in time, I do need to decide to abandon this dogmatic view of things, and see if I can be a part of this, either representing an organisation or representing the principles I believe in.
6. The talent discrepancy is so obvious because money pulls talents away into where it becomes a powerful resource to train and develop people. The counter-prevailing argument to that is that ideology is a more powerful shaper of beliefs and character. The death of ideology in Malaysia, together with the impotence of amal Islami, makes the talent discrepancy too obvious and too painful to watch. Needless to say that talent development is a costly affair. But the components are in place. The people and the networks must be nurtured to make this system work. We should be working on a global model of development – and this is not to say that we should all duff our caps to the people in suits and the people in overalls are of a secondary level, but rather an admission to say that characters, beliefs and principles should be compared to some of the overarching belief systems being spouted within the globalization, sustainability, capitalistic dogma is being met head-on and overcome through the sheer force of reason.
7. Being part of the system clouds our ability to reason, and because of that there is a real need to stay out of the system and work tirelessly, berjuang, to place an alternate, better reality into the world.