Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/law-to-tackle-online-falsehoods-not-an-attempt-to-suppress-11522938
(Updated: )
Lam Chian Leong
(1) Citizens need to be fed with true news and not fake news.
This is a given - as no one want to be led by lies or untrue news - that distort belief, facts and sway decisions based on untrue news.
(2) When someone express his/her opinions - it belong to him or her --- and it is up to people to make judgement whether people agree or disagree with his/her opinion.
(3) But if someone communicate an untrue information --- it means that person is telling a lie - to mislead people.
And if the untrue information lead to something serious that hurt people, disrupt social order, political disorder or even economic loss - then it need to be regulated and stopped.
(4) An information war is as harmful as real physical war - which have the effect of causing disastrous consequences "without even firing a bullet" - if wage by "psychological master".
This is a given - as no one want to be led by lies or untrue news - that distort belief, facts and sway decisions based on untrue news.
(2) When someone express his/her opinions - it belong to him or her --- and it is up to people to make judgement whether people agree or disagree with his/her opinion.
(3) But if someone communicate an untrue information --- it means that person is telling a lie - to mislead people.
And if the untrue information lead to something serious that hurt people, disrupt social order, political disorder or even economic loss - then it need to be regulated and stopped.
(4) An information war is as harmful as real physical war - which have the effect of causing disastrous consequences "without even firing a bullet" - if wage by "psychological master".
Like · Reply · 1m
Lam Chian Leong
Mr Heng said, "The one important lesson that we see in the more successful countries, including Switzerland, is the way in which there's been a strong focus on taking care of the welfare of workers.
--
(1) If companies are able to treat workers like their family members and take care of their welfare - then workers will likely to give all their best to the companies and their bosses.
(2) This is a philosophy best shared by older businessmen who run their businesses in the earlier day. And there are many workers who treasure their working days with their bosses and the companies till to their last until retirement.
(3) But when "western HR ideas" comes in that talk about :-
- hire and fire
- appraisal
- HR framework - that hive off the so call "last 10% low performers" ------- it is the surest way to poison the positive climate and energy in the company ---- where workers play "office politics" to stay alive ---- rather than giving their "heart and soul" to the company.
(4) The truth is - many top MNCs has already discarded the above "western HR ideas" of appraisal --- and turn to Swiss type of HR philosophy.
(5) Trust the workers we employ - and the workers will give "their heart and soul" to the company.
But once a company start to "play out" the workers --- "office politics" will take its place --- to the detriment of the company.
(6) In the larger context, the HR philosophy of the companies --- can be translated into a "political isssues" ---- where workers' grievances --- can be translated into "political grievances" --- that will in turn be directed to the politicians.
(7) Very happy that DPM Heng has realised this seemingly "inconsequential issue" ---- but which in actual fact --- can be a "positive or negative political discord" ---- if not managed properly.
--
(1) If companies are able to treat workers like their family members and take care of their welfare - then workers will likely to give all their best to the companies and their bosses.
(2) This is a philosophy best shared by older businessmen who run their businesses in the earlier day. And there are many workers who treasure their working days with their bosses and the companies till to their last until retirement.
(3) But when "western HR ideas" comes in that talk about :-
- hire and fire
- appraisal
- HR framework - that hive off the so call "last 10% low performers" ------- it is the surest way to poison the positive climate and energy in the company ---- where workers play "office politics" to stay alive ---- rather than giving their "heart and soul" to the company.
(4) The truth is - many top MNCs has already discarded the above "western HR ideas" of appraisal --- and turn to Swiss type of HR philosophy.
(5) Trust the workers we employ - and the workers will give "their heart and soul" to the company.
But once a company start to "play out" the workers --- "office politics" will take its place --- to the detriment of the company.
(6) In the larger context, the HR philosophy of the companies --- can be translated into a "political isssues" ---- where workers' grievances --- can be translated into "political grievances" --- that will in turn be directed to the politicians.
(7) Very happy that DPM Heng has realised this seemingly "inconsequential issue" ---- but which in actual fact --- can be a "positive or negative political discord" ---- if not managed properly.
Like · Reply · 1m
Lam Chian Leong
Mr Lee Kuan Yew win the election and become the Government - because he fight for the right and jobs of Singaporean workers.
Similarly, PAP can and will win the election, if the focus is to ensure good jobs and good income for Singaporeans - by taking care of workers' welfare.
Getting the HR framework right ---- positive, constructive HR framework - that improve the skills of workers and make them useful to the companies, taking care of their welfare and scrap obsolete performance appraisal system - that serve to lower the morale of the workers instead of making workers work better ---- will be the sure way to elicit support for the Government.
The philosophy of tripartitie relationship of Government, Business and Union --- which represent workers --- all boil down to this philosophy.
Similarly, PAP can and will win the election, if the focus is to ensure good jobs and good income for Singaporeans - by taking care of workers' welfare.
Getting the HR framework right ---- positive, constructive HR framework - that improve the skills of workers and make them useful to the companies, taking care of their welfare and scrap obsolete performance appraisal system - that serve to lower the morale of the workers instead of making workers work better ---- will be the sure way to elicit support for the Government.
The philosophy of tripartitie relationship of Government, Business and Union --- which represent workers --- all boil down to this philosophy.
Like · Reply · 1m
Lam Chian Leong
This Government will always be on the side of workers. This was Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s promise right from the start, and this…
Lee Kuan Yew Began His Political Career By Working With Unions
Like other trade unions from yesteryears, The Singapore Labour Movement used to employ the term “comrades”, but they have since adopted the terms “brother” and “sister” instead. Even PM Lee is referred to as Brother Lee!
Talk about being part of a huge family --- "how can we talk about "hire and fire" - with man-made appraisal system that serve to divide and not unite Singaporeans?
Lee Kuan Yew Began His Political Career By Working With Unions
Like other trade unions from yesteryears, The Singapore Labour Movement used to employ the term “comrades”, but they have since adopted the terms “brother” and “sister” instead. Even PM Lee is referred to as Brother Lee!
Talk about being part of a huge family --- "how can we talk about "hire and fire" - with man-made appraisal system that serve to divide and not unite Singaporeans?
Like · Reply · 1m
Zen Ten Zenten
Lam Chian Leong LKY is history.....look at the rut we are now in .....things will get worse as pappigs plan to boom the population to 10 million....
Reply · 1m
Lam Chian Leong
(1) This is 佛法 - 一真法界 (Sama Sam Buddhasa).
(2) The philosophy of "One for All, All for One" ---- "Mutual Inclusiveness".
(3) Mr Lee Kuan Yew ideologies in Tripartite Alliance - is all about this Philosophy - a Winning Unifying Philosophy.
(2) The philosophy of "One for All, All for One" ---- "Mutual Inclusiveness".
(3) Mr Lee Kuan Yew ideologies in Tripartite Alliance - is all about this Philosophy - a Winning Unifying Philosophy.
And this is a very powerful message.
Lam Chian Leong
And this can be a powerful manifesto.
Like · Reply · 1m
Lam Chian Leong
Lam Chian Leong
And this can be a powerful manifesto.
"One Party for All.
All for One Singapore."
- Leave no one behind.
Like · Reply · 1m
And this can be a powerful manifesto.
"One Party for All.
All for One Singapore."
- Leave no one behind.
Like · Reply · 1m
Lam Chian Leong
Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals
Josh Bersin , CONTRIBUTOR
I analyze corporate HR, talent management and leadership.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read "scrap" or "re-engineer") their performance appraisal process.
Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.
Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.
Why the process must change.
Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to "weed out" the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.
Coupled with the performance rating is the "potential" rating, which tries to capture an individual's potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).
This approach is based on a philosophy that "we cant totally trust managers" so we're going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.
The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:
Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but it's often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.
Managers cannot typically "judge" an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.
Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.
While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.
Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.
People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback - and the "appraisal" process almost always works against this.
The most valuable part of an appraisal is the "development planning" conversation - what can one do to improve performance and engagement - and this is often left to a small box on the review form.
Josh Bersin , CONTRIBUTOR
I analyze corporate HR, talent management and leadership.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read "scrap" or "re-engineer") their performance appraisal process.
Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.
Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.
Why the process must change.
Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to "weed out" the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.
Coupled with the performance rating is the "potential" rating, which tries to capture an individual's potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).
This approach is based on a philosophy that "we cant totally trust managers" so we're going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.
The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:
Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but it's often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.
Managers cannot typically "judge" an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.
Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.
While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.
Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.
People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback - and the "appraisal" process almost always works against this.
The most valuable part of an appraisal is the "development planning" conversation - what can one do to improve performance and engagement - and this is often left to a small box on the review form.
Lam Chian Leong
Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:
We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (don't we?)
We need a record of low performance when we let someone go
We need to capture performance data in an employee's profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration
We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.
Well, I've probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.
Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.
The new keys to success:
Develop a "feedback-rich" culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.
Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.
Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.
Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses - give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.
Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.
Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.
We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (don't we?)
We need a record of low performance when we let someone go
We need to capture performance data in an employee's profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration
We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.
Well, I've probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.
Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.
The new keys to success:
Develop a "feedback-rich" culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.
Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.
Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.
Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses - give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.
Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.
Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.
Lam Chian Leong
Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they aren't performing well it's not necessarily their fault - the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.
Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.
Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research shows that these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well - when you move to customer service, engineering, and other "builder" roles they can create problems.
Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.
Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.
Reward talent "production" not talent "hoarding." If you pay your managers to "produce output," they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills - so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.
I've had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In today's globalized,talent constrained workplace it's clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.
Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.
You can follow me to stay up to date on trends, research, and news in all areas of HR, leadership, and talent management on twitter at @josh_bersin. For more information on Bersin by Deloitte, please visit http://www.bersin.com .
Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.
Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research shows that these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well - when you move to customer service, engineering, and other "builder" roles they can create problems.
Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.
Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.
Reward talent "production" not talent "hoarding." If you pay your managers to "produce output," they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills - so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.
I've had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In today's globalized,talent constrained workplace it's clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.
Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.
You can follow me to stay up to date on trends, research, and news in all areas of HR, leadership, and talent management on twitter at @josh_bersin. For more information on Bersin by Deloitte, please visit http://www.bersin.com .
Dennis Ng KL
Excellent to have more truths!
Yet there are many more scams, fake marketing and nuisance SMS which nobody seems to be bothered with.
Yet there are many more scams, fake marketing and nuisance SMS which nobody seems to be bothered with.
Lawrence Seow
The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Do you think the public is daft? Will the opposition write books criticising the government and not be hauled to court. And what do you think the final verdict will be. Your assurances (and reassurances) are but hollow and empty platitudes. We cannot trust you anymore - from elected president to Ho Ching salary to CPF to HDB. Too many cases where our trust has betrayed.
Petjay Catarbas
It's one stone two birds.
Like · Reply · 2h
Singh Prem
With respect, anyone may make erroneous assumption on false facts. Anyone may misinterpret facts. The Government, Officials and public servants are engaged on social media too, and, hence, the law ought also to apply to them. We need to start the law on the right footing, or distrust will persist. Better a wholesome and noble law which encompasses everyone than one which omits one set of people/entities.
Zen Ten Zenten
....nothing more than a puppet in the Leegime......talk is cheap and everyone knows who the actual one who is pulling the strings.....nothing has changed.
Zen Ten Zenten
Anyone with half a brain to think will know where the pappigs are headed with POFMA...... Fake news law is ploy by government to hold on to absolute power. Go figure... if it's so simple to pass a law to suppress opposing views, just wait till after the GE when the pappigs are again returned to power......just easy like taking away candy from a toddler......
.....pappig charlatans...see what happened the last time regarding the elected presidency despite the protests....vote the Leegime out regardless of what these charlatans are saying.....this has got to be your last chance.
.....pappig charlatans...see what happened the last time regarding the elected presidency despite the protests....vote the Leegime out regardless of what these charlatans are saying.....this has got to be your last chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment