(Published in Business Mirror under the Mirror Image column,July 13, 2010)
I was listening to a morning AM radio program as the commentators were discussing the latest mandate of President Aquino to stamp out jueteng, coming from a report that the small-town lottery was just a front for illegal-numbers game.
Then the commentators interviewed former President Joseph Estrada, where he pointed out that all previous presidents—from the time of President Cory Aquino—wanted to stop jueteng, but all ended up in futility. It was only former President Estrada who wanted to legalize the numbers game, and legitimize the employment of more than 200,000 jueteng minions and for government to collect billions worth of taxes.
After hearing the radio-program discourse, it dawned upon me how gargantuan a task President Aquino is facing to eliminate jueteng after failed attempts from past administrations. Jueteng has become so institutionalized in our society that controlling it seems impossible. How can our leaders take control and put a stop to the illegal-numbers game? Is jueteng something that can be totally controlled or instead be regulated?
Leaders, be they in government or in business, are expected to be “in control” of the situation in which their business or administration find themselves. If an unexpected event occurs, like the Gulf oil spill that Obama is now facing, or the global financial crisis in 2009, leaders are supposed to pronounce that “things are under control.” But how can leaders or managers be expected to be totally in control when there are factors that are “beyond their control,” such as the entry of a new competitor, or an unexpected disaster, or a new regulation?
Organizations, as well as society as whole, are always in a state of flux. Change is constantly happening, be it gradual or sudden. But is this the natural state of organizations and society which is one of chaos, with dynamics of its own, and one which can even shape the leader? Should Mr. Aquino instead accept the fact that jueteng cannot be eradicated, and should, therefore, legalize it?
It’s incumbent upon the leader to accept change and the complexity that goes with it. A leader should understand how much he or she can exert over an organization or society which is always in a state of flux at the same time, and accept the fact that he or she is “not totally in control.” Society, like organizations, has a self-organizing and transformative nature. Groups and institutions have the intelligence to self-organize, as pointed in the book of Surowiecki’s Wisdom of Crowds.
Hence, a leader should appoint competent and trusted people to run departments and sections. They, in turn, should appoint reliable and trusted managers and staff. The leader should regularly and constantly engage in active conversations with his or her managers to communicate a clear vision, purpose and direction; and should allow these groups and departments to self-organize and creatively find ways. It’s like “losing control” but still “in control.” Dee Hock, the founder of Visa, called this chaordic organizations—combining chaos and order but still creatively working toward a common purpose.
Leaders and managers find that they live with the paradox of being simultaneously “in control’’ and “not in control.” To become an effective leader, one should learn to accept and live with this paradox by still creatively taking part in spite of “not being in control.”
So can jueteng be eliminated under this new administration? Only time will tell if the situation can be shaped by the current administration, or the other way around. But expectations are high.
----------------
“Mirror Image” is a rotating column featuring writers from the DLSU Professional Schools Inc. Reynaldo C. Lugtu Jr. teaches management and marketing courses in the MBA Program of De La Salle University, Graduate School of Business. He may be e-mailed at rlugtu2002@yahoo.com, or visit his blog at http://rlugtu.blogspot.com.
I was listening to a morning AM radio program as the commentators were discussing the latest mandate of President Aquino to stamp out jueteng, coming from a report that the small-town lottery was just a front for illegal-numbers game.
Then the commentators interviewed former President Joseph Estrada, where he pointed out that all previous presidents—from the time of President Cory Aquino—wanted to stop jueteng, but all ended up in futility. It was only former President Estrada who wanted to legalize the numbers game, and legitimize the employment of more than 200,000 jueteng minions and for government to collect billions worth of taxes.
After hearing the radio-program discourse, it dawned upon me how gargantuan a task President Aquino is facing to eliminate jueteng after failed attempts from past administrations. Jueteng has become so institutionalized in our society that controlling it seems impossible. How can our leaders take control and put a stop to the illegal-numbers game? Is jueteng something that can be totally controlled or instead be regulated?
Leaders, be they in government or in business, are expected to be “in control” of the situation in which their business or administration find themselves. If an unexpected event occurs, like the Gulf oil spill that Obama is now facing, or the global financial crisis in 2009, leaders are supposed to pronounce that “things are under control.” But how can leaders or managers be expected to be totally in control when there are factors that are “beyond their control,” such as the entry of a new competitor, or an unexpected disaster, or a new regulation?
Organizations, as well as society as whole, are always in a state of flux. Change is constantly happening, be it gradual or sudden. But is this the natural state of organizations and society which is one of chaos, with dynamics of its own, and one which can even shape the leader? Should Mr. Aquino instead accept the fact that jueteng cannot be eradicated, and should, therefore, legalize it?
It’s incumbent upon the leader to accept change and the complexity that goes with it. A leader should understand how much he or she can exert over an organization or society which is always in a state of flux at the same time, and accept the fact that he or she is “not totally in control.” Society, like organizations, has a self-organizing and transformative nature. Groups and institutions have the intelligence to self-organize, as pointed in the book of Surowiecki’s Wisdom of Crowds.
Hence, a leader should appoint competent and trusted people to run departments and sections. They, in turn, should appoint reliable and trusted managers and staff. The leader should regularly and constantly engage in active conversations with his or her managers to communicate a clear vision, purpose and direction; and should allow these groups and departments to self-organize and creatively find ways. It’s like “losing control” but still “in control.” Dee Hock, the founder of Visa, called this chaordic organizations—combining chaos and order but still creatively working toward a common purpose.
Leaders and managers find that they live with the paradox of being simultaneously “in control’’ and “not in control.” To become an effective leader, one should learn to accept and live with this paradox by still creatively taking part in spite of “not being in control.”
So can jueteng be eliminated under this new administration? Only time will tell if the situation can be shaped by the current administration, or the other way around. But expectations are high.
----------------
“Mirror Image” is a rotating column featuring writers from the DLSU Professional Schools Inc. Reynaldo C. Lugtu Jr. teaches management and marketing courses in the MBA Program of De La Salle University, Graduate School of Business. He may be e-mailed at rlugtu2002@yahoo.com, or visit his blog at http://rlugtu.blogspot.com.
Comments