Not many people love to work in a family business especially when you are not part of the family. The reason is simple – the best positions and opportunities are normally reserved for those in the family. Outsiders? You’re just there to assist them.

Well, that is at least what most people think. Fact is, this kind of favouritism can happen anywhere, not just in a family business. If you happen to work for a boss who favours few individuals over the rest, the same thing will happen. The good opportunities will all be left to those few individuals. As for the rest, consider yourselves lucky if you are able to get a decent increment. And yes, this kind of scenario happens in a lot of companies. So what makes you think this is different from your fear of working in a family business? Not much difference as far as I can see.

And on the other hand, a family business under the management of the right people will always pick the best person for the job even if the person is not one of his relatives. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Genting is doing a very good job at this. Genting directors are some of the highest paid people in Malaysia and don’t tell me all of them belong to the Lim family.

Okay, I know some of you would say “what about those small family business where the CEO is the husband and the COO is the wife?” Normally, that kind of company has a big “Join us and die” sign board at their entrance. Just kidding. It can be very bad but also, it depends on how mature and how professional they are. I believe there shouldn’t be any problem if the CEO and the COO know what is personal and what is work. If they can’t, then you better stay away. Don’t end up like my friend who was forced to resign because he did not know which instruction to follow – CEO (husband) or COO (wife).

Anyway, I think at the end of the day, the most important factor here is who are the top people and how do they run the company. Favouritism style? Or best-man-for-the-job style? And also, is there a long term future working for them. Are they professional enough to know what is best for the company. If majority of the above questions are ‘NO’, then time to move on.

Recession is nearly over (or at least, this is what most of us believe). For the past 1 – 2 years, we’ve seen many companies closed down and all of those which survived are franctically cutting cost (still). Cost cutting is not wrong but the definition of the so-called cost cutting is, in my humble opinion, not clearly defined in most companies.

How many times have we heard about such a scenario:

The big boss decided to reduce working day from 5 days week to 4 days week, removed the optical and dental allowances, and stopped the food and drink supply in the pantry. All these things have to be done in order to save the company from being closed down during this difficult period.

The big boss then flew to another country for business purpose, on a business class, and used the company credit card to have expensive meals. He also ordered the purchase of several high-end office equipments which were practically useless. Expenses shot up.

In the end, the company still did not do well and was forced to close down due to the high expenses. The big boss went on to find another job as the ‘big boss’ in another company and the best thing was, his bungalow and luxury car were safe.

In case you’re wondering about the shareholders, well, most of them don’t really look into all the details.

I’m sure some of you have experienced or have at least heard stories like the one above. Truth is, there are just so many bosses out there who don’t walk the talk. They’ll ask you to cut cost, but the cost cutting measures are not applicable for them.

The result? Almost everyone will end up unhappy due to the unfair treatment and this will actually force some good people to leave (maybe forcing people to leave without compensating them is part of the plan). If you’re one of the bosses, the next question is do you care about it?

If yes, perhaps there are few things that you really need to work on.

• Know that your responsibility as the boss is to grow the business, not (just) grow your own pocket.
• Earn respect from your employees. A boss who is not respected will not have good employees.
• Understand that what kind of employees you have depends on what kind of boss you are.
• Always walk the talk so that your people trust you. Too much empty promises will not do you good.

But well, I know it’s hard to do the things above. It’s just that, sometimes when the bosses or the company’s top management decided to cut cost by retrenching people, pay reduction, etc …maybe they should think about the entire cost cutting plan thoroughly as many people will suffer due to their decision. And having a bunch of top management people enjoying champagne and driving BMWs just add salt to the wound of those cost cutting victims.

Perhaps, in the end, the main question to the bosses is, do you know what are your responsibilities as a boss?

Just a few weeks (or months) ago, I talked about the lack of loyalty in our world. Then I recalled one story which my sister told me before.

A friend of hers has just started a new job in a multinational company. After only 1 month, she wanted to resign because of the ill treatments she received from a senior operation manager. The manager has been with the company for 30 years and used to be a star performer. But for the past few years (according to many), he has been a star performer only when bosses were around. Otherwise, he would just sleep in the office for whole day or disappeared into nothingness. He also started to force other people out, people who he did not like.

I think this is quite a good example where being loyal actually brings more bad than good. For someone who has been working in the company for 30 years, his position in the company (and in the bosses’ mind) should be pretty secure. But that does not mean he is contributing to the company. In the example above, he is actually bringing the company down due to his ego.

And this kind of scenario also applies to other things such as a long-term relationship gone sour, a long term customer who starts to be overly demanding, a friend who becomes overly possessive, etc. These scenarios will most likely turn from bad to worse in the long run, and this can be very bad for everyone.

Maybe this is the reason why people should know how to assess things properly and able to make the right decision(s). In the end, just like everything else in this world, being loyal can be good and bad, depending on which context. Sometimes, it pays to remain loyal but there will also be moments when calling it quit is the best option available.

During my time in Sydney, I met a lot new people – mostly my colleagues there. Some of them look pretty young while some look to be quite senior. And yet some of them actually have the same job roles. That is the thing which surprised me the most (and also something which I respect a lot). There seems to be no age barrier or limitation. Back in Malaysia (or any Asian country), you don’t normally see a 25-year-old “kid” having the same job position as a 50-year-old veteran. We have the strange concept where older people MUST move up the corporate ladder unless they are not capable to do so. There is no such thing as a single job role for everyone.

For example, if you are a fresh graduate in IT, you should be a programmer.

If you have 5 years experience, you should be a senior programmer.

If 10 years, then a technical architect or a project manager. You CAN remain as a senior programmer, but your salary will not go up since it belongs to the lower group in the corporate food chain.

Do you think this is a good practice? For me, I don’t. I don’t see why someone who loves to do programming should not be rewarded properly and must be forced to move to the management level in order to get proper remuneration. Why force someone to do something he does not like? And most importantly, why decide for people what they should be working as based on how old they are?

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why I’ve met more passionate people in western countries than I’ve ever met in any Asian country. What do you think? Should something be changed or you think it is fine the way it is now?

p/s…. i understand that in certain companies where a manager is regarded to be more important than a programmer, it is only natural to pay the manager more. If that’s the case, then let us try to put it in a different context. Let’s say you are hiring a programmer, and a 50-year-old guy with the proper experience and knowledge apply for the job. Will you consider him or will you think he is actually too old for the job even though he is really passionate about it?

Few months ago, I went to this job interview with a local consulting firm. I’ve done my research on the company beforehand, and realized that the company’s operation is pretty much similar to Accenture’s. And that has made me even more curious about how the small consulting firm is planning to compete with a company as big as Accenture.

Here’s the question I’ve asked the interviewer during the job interview.

Alvin : Mr XYZ, I understand that this company’s operation is pretty similar to Accenture.

XYZ : *looks surprised* You’re right. We’re trying to be like the big boys in consulting world and one of them is Accenture.

Alvin : Hmm, I’m a bit curious here. How do your company actually differentiate itself then? Because without differentiating itself, the company is actually competing with Accenture, isn’t it?

Maybe that’s the finishing blow I gave because the interviewer failed to answer my question after that. And he got rather pissed at that last remark.

Actually, there’s nothing wrong for a small company to try and be like Accenture or any big companies for that matter. But for me, setting a company as your final goal also means you will never reach there. Remember the old saying “aim for the stars, so that you can land on the moon”? It’s like you set something as your final goal, and you work and work towards it but never manages to achieve that target. And even if you are the lucky few who managed to achieve it, what’s next then? Aim for something bigger than Accenture?

To be honest, if I were the client, I will ask myself these questions.

• What is so special about this company if compared with Accenture?
• Are they providing cheaper solution? If yes, how much cheaper? Will the quality be compromised? If it’s not providing cheaper solution, what makes them think I won’t go for Accenture instead?

Let’s face it. Most people want the original stuff as long as they can afford it. So the only bargaining chip you have here is to be cheaper. But how much cheaper do you want to go? I believe the last thing any company wants is to end up in a price war – red ocean, anyone?

So the next time you help to set your company’s goal, try to set something which is independent of any other companies. Again, I must say that it’s not wrong to do so. It just does not seem like the best way for me. I rather set goals like “becoming the market leader in the web 2.0 consulting world” or “integrating the world of legacy systems” or a simpler “becoming the leader in the niche market which the company is involved in”.

Compare those 3 with something like “becoming just like Accenture”….I think I rather chose the former 3. But that’s just my personal opinion.

p/s… For your info, I failed the interview. Guess my curiosity didn’t serve me well

p/s… By the way, a goal can be a direction and not the destination.