"Overcome your fear."
I remember a period of time when this was the mantra everywhere.
The supposed result? A better, more fulfilling life, where you can do anything, reach any height, accomplish any ambition.
And yet, fear is useful.
If it wasn't, why do we have it, and why is it instantly recognisable as a facial expression?
Also, why is it impossible to completely get rid of?
Without fear, we'd have become extinct a long time ago.
Our curious ancestors would have popped random brightly-coloured berries into their mouths, ventured into lion dens, jumped off cliffs, or tried to swim to faraway islands.
And who will have stayed behind to remember and record the dangerous acts?
My contention is that fear should be acknowledged, managed, and respected. Not erased.
The Training Industry (at Least in Singapore) is Filled with Fear and Mistrust. We Have to Change That.
I once talked to a few fellow trainers about education and the current ‘landscape’ of training opportunities. One of the things that they brought up resonated deeply with me.
They said that training companies that they work with/for aren’t very open to sharing resources, collaborating with one another, or sharing freelance trainer databases.
I asked them if they, as trainers, are open to these things and they responded with a resounding yes!
As a long-time trainer myself, I cannot help but agree with their assessment.
It felt strange that there was such a disconnection between the attitudes of the trainers and that of the training companies.
But I get it.
The prevailing concern is that of intellectual property "theft". And at least one of the companies I've worked with seems to have a crippling fear of this.
Even after working for so many years with them, readily sharing material I come up with on my own, it still feels as if they don't trust me.
The truth is, in the post-information age, information is so readily available that it's impossible to completely protect your lesson plans and curriculum, unless you ban all recording devices and recording methods, including webinars and online classes.
Further, even if someone else knows what you train, can they deliver it the way you can?
If they can do so easily, maybe your material isn't that good or original to begin with.
In which case, is it really as valuable as you think it is?
Systems are Designed. Their Flaws Can Also be Designed Away.
It's easy to understand why people in large systems do the things they do.
Because the systems are composed of so many working parts, a tiny error somewhere can eventually lead to a cascade of catastrophe.
Or at least that's what the fear is.
As a result, most of the people working within these systems are terrified that they are going to get punished for causing a malfunction, so they opt for a "better safe than sorry", "have all my bases covered" approach to everything.
This results in blanket policies, reactive strategies, and a general unwillingness to rock the boat, making changes only if absolutely necessary and only after mind-numbingly long periods of time.
Bureaucracy, red tape, infuriatingly inflexible gatekeepers, we've all met them.
And hate them.
And yet, they aren't there by accident. They are there by design.
Which means that they can also be designed away.
Hence the immense importance of thought leadership, safe spaces, and granting autonomy.
What I Learned from Singapore's General Elections 2015 (Part Three)
Having had a little more time to gather thoughts, information, and opinions, I thought I'd look at another part of the GE puzzle.
One of the driving forces of human behaviour is fear. If you have ever felt angry and worried when you misplaced your phone, you have just experienced behaviour driven by fear - your fear that you have lost your phone.
Some analysts believe that voters were driven to the PAP's side by their fears. For example, their fear of:
1) A freak election result where the opposition parties win many more seats in parliament than they had in GE2011.
On the ground, the opposition parties are generally seen as unproven, untested, and therefore likely to be less competent. There is fear that their sudden increase in government may cause an imbalance, resulting in instability, at least for a short time.
This fear of instability is compounded by the opposition parties themselves suggesting that they don't want to take over the government, preferring to take a "quality control" position. This suggestion indicates to the voters that the opposition parties, noble as their intentions may be, are neither prepared nor confident enough of their leadership of the nation. It is probably safe to say that a seeming lack of confidence is often a deal-breaker in the election of a leader.
Also, if parliament spends more time debating issues than it needs to, actions cannot be taken.
Lack of action will be seen as weakness by the global community - a view that will likely lower investor confidence and lead to a depletion of funds for Singapore's still-strong economy. This will begin a downward spiral that may lead many to financial ruin, the likes of which we may not be able to recover.
Singapore's government must remain strong and action-centred, because these are the traits that investors look for.
2) The looming global crises
Looking away from the local scene, there are numerous indications of currency problems, falling economies, and increasing debts.
As I am not an economist or a financial expert, I am in no position to analyse these things. What I do know is that there is widespread fear of a coming economic collapse, and, in times of uncertainty, voters will naturally gravitate towards the ruling party, which has a track record of leading the people out of past financial crises with below-average damage to the local economy.
Changes in the political landscapes in China, USA, and the Middle East are also getting people jumpy. Again, when things go down, people stick to what they are familiar with.
3) Too much change
People don't like change, especially not drastic ones. Although the opposition parties have clear supporters, many Singaporeans are wary of what they see as populist agendas and cheap publicity. They may worry that, should these ideas be brought to parliament, there may be too much emphasis on them, and other issues may be relegated to the background.
We are creatures of habit and we are often very unwilling to leave our comfort zones.
As long as the ruling party maintains its pool of talent, and uses it wisely, it will take a confident, competent, powerful opposition party just to overcome the inertia of voting against them.
I believe that this will be the last post I will make on the General Elections 2015, unless something else strikes me.
