Thursday, February 11, 2016
Wednesday, December 02, 2015
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Singapore and the Closed Organizational System
With the death of Lee Kuan Yew, former prime minister of Singapore for three decades, there is renewed debate on the so called "Asian Value" versus the Western liberal democracy. Lee championed the idea of Asian value, which advocates an alternative form of government that emphasized efficiency over freedom of speech and democracy.
Singapore's successful development over the past 30 years from one of the newly industrializing nations to a top international financial center today with a per capita GDP that's on par with the US, seems to vindicate Lee's vision. But past performance does not guarantee future success. And here is why: Singapore's success relies on a closed organizational system.
A close system is structured, top down, with clear chain of command. Meetings are held behind closed doors, decisions are made by few, speech is limited, and feedback focus on the negatives - the problems. With a strong and formal leadership a closed system can be efficient, especially in repetitive processes. The system is most successful when definition of success is clearly defined over a long period of time.
But there are drawbacks to the closed system. A closed system does not embrace change easily. Individual freedom is sacrificed. New idea is easily rejected if it's not coming from the top. In a world when product cycle becomes short and cultural appeal becomes an important differentiator, a closed system may find itself challenged.
Democracy, on the other hand, is an open system. An open system balance good of the whole with that of the individual. Collective decisions are arrived by consensus and depends on people's value. It emphasizes collaboration, communication, team work, and problem solving. Feedback balances between positive and negative. Change requires consensus and acceptance.
The strength of democracy lies in its adaptability. Different ideas are constantly evaluated and competing with each other. Talents can be found from unexpected corners. Innovations can thrive. In a changing environment where definition of success can change in a short period of time it has the advantage of both distributed thinking and collective wisdom.
Closed system is more efficient to solve well defined problems. An example of that is the military. An open system incorporates value, culture, and individual freedom, and will be more effective in solving a wide variety of problems in the long run.
Singapore's successful development over the past 30 years from one of the newly industrializing nations to a top international financial center today with a per capita GDP that's on par with the US, seems to vindicate Lee's vision. But past performance does not guarantee future success. And here is why: Singapore's success relies on a closed organizational system.
A close system is structured, top down, with clear chain of command. Meetings are held behind closed doors, decisions are made by few, speech is limited, and feedback focus on the negatives - the problems. With a strong and formal leadership a closed system can be efficient, especially in repetitive processes. The system is most successful when definition of success is clearly defined over a long period of time.
But there are drawbacks to the closed system. A closed system does not embrace change easily. Individual freedom is sacrificed. New idea is easily rejected if it's not coming from the top. In a world when product cycle becomes short and cultural appeal becomes an important differentiator, a closed system may find itself challenged.
Democracy, on the other hand, is an open system. An open system balance good of the whole with that of the individual. Collective decisions are arrived by consensus and depends on people's value. It emphasizes collaboration, communication, team work, and problem solving. Feedback balances between positive and negative. Change requires consensus and acceptance.
The strength of democracy lies in its adaptability. Different ideas are constantly evaluated and competing with each other. Talents can be found from unexpected corners. Innovations can thrive. In a changing environment where definition of success can change in a short period of time it has the advantage of both distributed thinking and collective wisdom.
Closed system is more efficient to solve well defined problems. An example of that is the military. An open system incorporates value, culture, and individual freedom, and will be more effective in solving a wide variety of problems in the long run.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Government Data Links
Federal Reserve Economic Data - http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
Bureau of Census - http://www.census.gov/data.html
Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/data/
Bureau of Economic Analysis - http://www.bea.gov/itable/
US Courts Administration - http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics.aspx
Thursday, December 11, 2014
心內彈琵琶----回憶蘇慶黎和蘇媽媽蕭不纏 | Our lightning
心內彈琵琶----回憶蘇慶黎和蘇媽媽蕭不纏 | Our lightning:
很長的故事，ㄧ路讀著讀著，又淚又笑的、淚濕了又乾了無數回…讚嘆香燕老師的筆，和一雙ㄧ貫清澈純真的眼睛，從這雙奇妙的
安靜的眼睛捕捉到的，不管是幸或不幸的看見，竟然也都各自找到它存在的位置，不論美醜好壞，只讓行路經過的人，清晰的看見
那個時代的世間風景，人性的真實景象。很深很深的感動，久久還回不來…
很長的故事，ㄧ路讀著讀著，又淚又笑的、淚濕了又乾了無數回…讚嘆香燕老師的筆，和一雙ㄧ貫清澈純真的眼睛，從這雙奇妙的
安靜的眼睛捕捉到的，不管是幸或不幸的看見，竟然也都各自找到它存在的位置，不論美醜好壞，只讓行路經過的人，清晰的看見
那個時代的世間風景，人性的真實景象。很深很深的感動，久久還回不來…
Monday, December 01, 2014
柯P 教我的幾件事
選舉是一時的，人性是永遠的。這一段時間關心柯P的言行，讓我對人生，有許多的反省。 只想寫下來，留個紀錄:
1. 試著原諒別人。
被傷害的記憶，總是最難忘掉。但是如果不能放下過去的委屈，就沒有辦法全心全意的努力面前，讓現在活得快樂，為未來奠定更好的基礎。
2. 什麼才是活著?
人有必死的命運，活著的每一天，都要活的有義意。經常思考自己的目標，雖有挫折，也不可懷憂喪志，憤世嫉俗。
3. 心存善念，盡力而為。
在這個全球化，市場化的時代，人很容易在追求金錢中，迷失了自己。追求金錢本來是要改善自己和家人的生活，但在競逐的過程，往往忘掉了金錢只是手段，反而 把 bottom line 當成了目的。甚至有財團以行善來沽名釣譽，增加利潤。但也許真相是，根本不需要那麼多錢，就能達到原先設想的目標。更多的金錢不但無益，反而有害。
4. 如果我能清晰的描繪願景，而這個願景是對大家都有益的，別人就會自動的來幫助我。我們雖有不同的過去，卻有著共同的現在。唯一務實的做法，就是攜手共創美好的未來。惡鬥沒有人能獲勝，只是徒然浪費時間。
5. 做為領袖，一定要為不好的結果負責，不可以把疏失錯誤推給下屬。因為如果這樣做，會失去下屬的信任，你就失去了領導的能力。團隊成員的信任，領袖要不計代價的保護，因為這是領袖唯一的倚靠。
6. 對人的尊重，可以換來諒解。 "家屬不會怪醫師沒有把病人救活。他們怪的是沒有盡力，也沒有尊重。" "當病人知道我已盡全力，反而會回過來安慰我，生死兩相安，再無遺憾。" 所有的人際關係，不都是這樣嗎?
1. 試著原諒別人。
被傷害的記憶，總是最難忘掉。但是如果不能放下過去的委屈，就沒有辦法全心全意的努力面前，讓現在活得快樂，為未來奠定更好的基礎。
2. 什麼才是活著?
人有必死的命運，活著的每一天，都要活的有義意。經常思考自己的目標，雖有挫折，也不可懷憂喪志，憤世嫉俗。
3. 心存善念，盡力而為。
在這個全球化，市場化的時代，人很容易在追求金錢中，迷失了自己。追求金錢本來是要改善自己和家人的生活，但在競逐的過程，往往忘掉了金錢只是手段，反而 把 bottom line 當成了目的。甚至有財團以行善來沽名釣譽，增加利潤。但也許真相是，根本不需要那麼多錢，就能達到原先設想的目標。更多的金錢不但無益，反而有害。
4. 如果我能清晰的描繪願景，而這個願景是對大家都有益的，別人就會自動的來幫助我。我們雖有不同的過去，卻有著共同的現在。唯一務實的做法，就是攜手共創美好的未來。惡鬥沒有人能獲勝，只是徒然浪費時間。
5. 做為領袖，一定要為不好的結果負責，不可以把疏失錯誤推給下屬。因為如果這樣做，會失去下屬的信任，你就失去了領導的能力。團隊成員的信任，領袖要不計代價的保護，因為這是領袖唯一的倚靠。
6. 對人的尊重，可以換來諒解。 "家屬不會怪醫師沒有把病人救活。他們怪的是沒有盡力，也沒有尊重。" "當病人知道我已盡全力，反而會回過來安慰我，生死兩相安，再無遺憾。" 所有的人際關係，不都是這樣嗎?
Tuesday, October 07, 2014
Monday, September 29, 2014
Confusion on the term "liberalism"
What is liberalism? Is it about economic freedom, democracy, or social insurance? I found the term being used in all three possible meanings but the policies pursuing these different goals can actually contradict each other.
More economic freedom can mean less social protection. Democracy can cut either way: a democratically elected conservative government, in the British sense, can work to tear down social insurance programs.
So what is liberalism? and who is liberal?
More economic freedom can mean less social protection. Democracy can cut either way: a democratically elected conservative government, in the British sense, can work to tear down social insurance programs.
So what is liberalism? and who is liberal?
Timeline of human evolution
6 million years ago, start to stand upright.
2.6 million years ago, use of tools becomes common.
1.8 million years ago, longer legs and wider strides.
500 thousand years ago, brain size increases rapidly.
250 thousand years ago, symbol communication.
160 thousand years ago, longer childhood and adolescence.
10 thousand years ago, domestication of plants and farming.
2.6 million years ago, use of tools becomes common.
1.8 million years ago, longer legs and wider strides.
500 thousand years ago, brain size increases rapidly.
250 thousand years ago, symbol communication.
160 thousand years ago, longer childhood and adolescence.
10 thousand years ago, domestication of plants and farming.
The progress of humanity
Life is a lot safer and more comfortable today than 300 years ago. Modernization is achieved by progress in science, technology, and method of production. Better infrastructure, public health, machinery and tools, quality of food, all contribute to the extension of life expectancy.
Before 1750 even the rich has a short and tough life. Most people have a short life and infant mortality is very high. People are very religious because death is a constant threat and plays an important role in their planning of life. Short and unpredictable life expectancy influenced people's attitude toward marriage, one of the most important institutions for the survival of the species. The political views were also conservative and societies were evolving very slowly.
Before 1750 even the rich has a short and tough life. Most people have a short life and infant mortality is very high. People are very religious because death is a constant threat and plays an important role in their planning of life. Short and unpredictable life expectancy influenced people's attitude toward marriage, one of the most important institutions for the survival of the species. The political views were also conservative and societies were evolving very slowly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)