http://www.economist.com/node/17493411

http://www.economist.com/node/17493411

THE DREAM PHONE...!

Dubbed the "dream phone", the Verizon iphone, soon-to-be launched in the US in the first half of 2011, is a result of the tried and tested partnership between Apple and Verizon Wireless. Verizon Wireless is the mobile giant in America ranked 13th in the Fortune 500. Many American consumers can't wait to have this unkwon gadget among their widgets list. Such an appetite waiting, reports state, is mainly attributed to the crippled swaths of AT&T's network quality caused by the enormous release of Apple iphone in 2007. The big question however is that will Verizon Wireless cope with the vast network traffic caused by the high volumes of smartphones usage not just on voice, but mainly on data and video? Plans for global distribution have not been mentioned. My sense tells me that the Verizon iphone will never taste the shores beyond America's for one main reason.

In 1999, Bell Atlantic and Vodafone US merged their assets to form Verizon Wireless. The much Anticipated Verizon iphone is branded as such. Vodafone, as a result, compete in the US mobile space through its stake in Verizon Wireless.  This will not be a problem for Vodafone in America as a shareholder in the business. However, branding the handset Verizon while in the sales shelves of Vodafone remains to be desired. It goes the same with Vodafone interest in South Africa's Vodacom for example. While Vodafone owns over 60% of Vodacom Group in South Africa, i see a dilution of branding with Verizon Wireless branded phone on Vodacom's shelves, which Vodacom in turn brand itself as the member of Vodafone Group. For me, this is a clear sign that the Verizon iphone will only see the light in the shores of America's. As to the features and the capabilities of Verizon iphone, that detail is yet to be revealed. It would be an envy of many consumers outside the US should the Verizon iphone surpass the current Apple iphone. The Europen edition of Fortune magazine reports that AT&T's executives are not worried about loosing customers to Verizon Wireless network when the smartphone is launched. "AT&T wishes its rivals good luck with that. We carry half of the US wireless data on the fastest 3G network", says Larry Solomon, an AT&T spokesman.  He maintains that Verizon's network hasn't been battle-tested yet, so you dont know if they can handle the data load or not. The battle of mobile giants in the US in the 2011 year is going to be the highlight of yet another battle for dollar revenues and customers in the name of a smartphone called Verizon iphone. Watch this space for more news on this gadget...

Business English, not just English as a requirement and essential for business communication

While I embrace the nascent social media, the role it plays in society and its lingua franca across all age groups, I am terrified though; that the language of communication or the manner of speaking through these platforms could have a serious negative impact to the future generations on formal business communication, especially written communication. Young people are entering the world of work without the skills to write an appropriate letter. I still witness and receive emails analogous to a “SMS” on formal business matters with poor grammar and at most with no punctuation marks. So, I am expected to painstakingly first understand what the sender attempts to say and mean before I could get to the substance of the correspondence. It’s atrocious and this takes some precious time for which i personally do not have luxury.  

While I was at school, university to be precise, and gleaned through newspaper recruitment advertisements, one of the common requirement and essential of the job would be fluency in English, as a universal business lingua franca. Given that I would garner for job opportunities in the media industry as a salesman, excellent written communication skills would be an added requirement or necessity. It is through the latter requirement that my observation and experience in the recent past sends shivers down my spine. It is my nature to be curious and inquisitive in the quest to learn and gain knowledge on subjects and matters. I am the foe of naivety. I take a conscious wisdom and a literal sense of the cliché phrase “knowledge is power”. I’m not trying to blow my own trumpet and pat myself on the back. I went to school precisely for this purpose; to learn, be inquisitive and critical and most of all to listen so that i am able to engage. 

Our future generation is destined to face a catastrophic challenge and difficulty excelling in the fields where written communication, in a universal lingua franca, that is English, is an absolute requirement, unless there’s specializing in literature and grammar up to and including tertiary level. And I am deliberately referring to the universal medium of instruction in a global sense. South Africa comprises eleven official languages and preserved in the constitution. The vision of all these languages being practically spoken in business communication remains a dream in the horizon, given the lack of prioritizing linguistics in our education system. So, English, for a foreseeable future, will remain a dominant medium of instruction in South Africa, let alone the dominant of Afrikaans in remaining companies with a predominant Afrikaans culture.

Let’s go back to my concern about written communications skills by the future generation amidst short-message-language in social media and telecommunications services, added to it the vision of South Africa’s 11 official languages. In the future, companies will be compelled to demand a requirement of not just fluency in English, but Business English. The Queen Elizabeth’s lingo has now been subjected to derivatives with proliferating slangs and informal speak (chats). Business English would now be the requirement. Yes, Business English. So there it is a clear distinction between a “Chat English” and “Business English”. Spoken English is much easier as there’s a lot of informal grammar that goes in it. But still it would be pleasant to listen to a language that is “reach” in its grammar, that is, inclusive of idioms and phrasal verbs. I admire the older generation when they speak their language with that “reach” depth across all racial groups. It’s like the sounds of the sea waves to one’s ears and the morning oceans’ breeze to one’s proboscis. I am in no way suggesting that this generation should cease to use this so called "chat" speak. Efforts must be made to make them aware and not let them lose focus on understanding and learning the correct and accepted lingua franca in business, let alone in general formal communication.

In the article published early this year by Annica Foxcroft entitled “Speech of Freedom: how English can unlock doors”, she maintains that how we speak and how well we speak, affects our future. “Misunderstood agreements and rules and ambiguous contracts can cost companies their profits and their customers”, she retorts. She made the point that people can and do lose their jobs. In a country where the bulk of the population does not have English as a mother tongue, this situation is actually almost a national emergency. People are graduating from universities still unable to write a basic e-mail or an effective report. School leavers from the vast majority of schools speak a mangled, poorly pronounced pidgin English, short on tenses, vocabulary, spelling, reading and written skills.  

The next challenge is that of reducing the breeding of the so called “rhetoric” synonymous primarily with politicians, hence “political rhetoric”. This speak is permeating and traversing the manner of speaking in the society. I remember one day at an interview after making a point following a question, one of the panelists quipped that I spoke like a politician. At one instance I was also told that I spoke like a marketer and not a sales person. That’s“rhetoric”. It’s a story for another day.    

The modern development of a generation gap in business

I have read a number of books and skimmed a handful of journals and articles about generation gap in companies and the strategies employed to mitigate the risks brought about by the lack of business skills as a result of this gap. It’s interesting to note and observe a shift of factors causing such gaps. Just over a decade and a half ago when I first stepped into the corporate environment, the most generation gap imminent at the time was purely that of age in relation to the gab between the skills by the top brass in companies and the middle management. Simply put, the average age of a CEO was 60 years and that of the middle management about 40 years, thus creating a gab of about 20 years. So, this 20-year gap, mirrored the time period that the middle management needed to catch up in order to match the skills required of potentially becoming the next senior executives in a company. The only challenge for companies and mangers running them was to train and develop future leaders and managers on business skills. It was through this practice that, then, it was more appropriate to work in a company for 20 years before one became a manager.

The converse of this generational gap development was that, these senior managers were foreign to the use of technology. You wouldn’t be surprised if most senior managers in a company would find it hard and difficult, if not possible, to operate a computer. The governance of most companies was administered manually, with the exception of companies in the IT environment and some service industries. Meaning that operationally, there were no sophisticated technological tools available like it is the case today. So, this meant, while the generation of 40 year olds, then, had to catch up with business skills, the older generations in the 60’s had to catch up with technology.  

Whereas I cut my teeth in a campus/ community radio, but my first corporate job was in a newspaper publishing company. I was a sales representative with no laptop, let alone a desktop computer. My boss had a desktop but for writing memos and other admin work. I was a techie though. My four years at university orientated me to technology. In a way I was part of this converse generational gap of technology and business skills.

Observing the current corporate environment, the generation gap has shifted. Generation X has to cope with the proliferation of technology in every aspect of life. In companies Generation Y is “taking over”. Technology defines how companies should be run. The advancement of telecommunications and cheaper access thereof is changing the traditional ways of business operations. Now as opposed to just training and development in business skills, the challenge is TECHNOLOGY! This, not only shifts the nature of training and development, but also compounds the focus of how companies operate in the midst of technological advancement. I guess it would be a daunting task to strike a balance of this reversal generational gap. Even the age gab has shifted. The average age of a CEO is now about 50 years and middle management is about 35 years. While three decades ago an average tenure of a CEO in a company was 10-15 years, now it is merely 7 years. It begs the questions; will the future industries demand technology orientated business managers and leaders? Wouldn’t this technological advancement impact on the core development of business skills required to run companies? Are the future leaders currently consumed by technology compromising their quality time to learn and develop themselves about business skills?  What about information overload? Managing companies is getting complicated by the day. But the fact remains, the more consumers are technologically advanced and orientated, the more companies need to up their technology game. Where is technology taking us?

Moral crisis in capitalism over corporate greed and irresponsibility

FIFA World Cup South Africa 2010™ has been touted the best in the history of this number one sporting world event. South Africa, let alone Africa as a continent, received unprecedented praises on hosting this event successfully amidst the prophets of doom and disparagers. They also felt it that it was here. South Africa prides herself. Many, if not all South Africans have a strong believe that the event unfolded the hidden golden thread that meant to tie us into a cohesive society since 1994. The tournament has come and gone but one positive thing it has left behind is that it has helped to foster racial tolerance, at least according to my observation. Business, government, labour and all societal forces in the country breed positive attitudes that the post-world cup will generate positive socio-economic development spin-offs and benefits for all including but not limited to job creation, international trade ties, investors, foreign direct investments (FDI) and increment of tourists on to the Mzansi shores. As a nation we are all positive about these potential developments of our beautiful country. The challenge is for all societal forces to keep the momentum on track.

That the world cup has left such soft issues that strengthen external relations and perceptions, what about our own core hard issues? Here I am specifically referring to the discontentment of our society with the high rate of unemployment (over 25%), lack of or slow paced service delivery by government, crime, corruption and other social ills that bedevil our beautiful country. While there are many issues to debate and converse about, my focus is specifically on the greed and irresponsibility to the detriment and at the expense of socio-economic development. Firstly, income disparity between senior executives and lower grade employees is atrocious. Perhaps labour legislation should reconsider minimum wage levels based on the size and profitability of companies. It begs the question why is there a minimum wage and not a maximum. Pardon my ignorance possibly I am reading too much of the literature challenging conventional wisdom. My argument here is that while empowerment seeks to redress socio-economic imbalances of the past through legislation with emphasis on intellectual capital, consideration should be given to a reasonable standard of leaving that sustains the economy through savings that the employees would set aside provided their monthly earnings allow such a characteristic of a saving culture contributing to economic growth with less debt and credit spending.   Is this unfair to the corporates as such interventions could curtail investor interest and capital inflows? Could this be interpreted as killing entrepreneurial spirit when government interferes with the capitalist practices and behavior? Capitalists will surely disagree with me, but the majority of those residing in the second economy will most definitely agree with me. Therefore this warrants a dialogue among all those concern and have interest in the socio-economic development of this country and not be left to business alone.

Secondly, it is argued globally, and supported by facts that small businesses (SMMEs) generates 80% of employment in all the countries that have had policies developed to support entrepreneurship and encourage entrepreneurial fortitude.  It saddened me and sometimes get perturbed that while the government, through BBBEE legislation, attempts to redress historical socio-economic imbalances, big businesses hide behind their massive revenues running into billions by contributing to the tax base and behave as if South Africa is a developed nation with 60% of its economic active population (EAP) in the upper income brackets and that there are no small businesses that need to be developed to become effective in the mainstream economy so that they in turn benefit through incentives devised by regulations for that purpose. It is dreadful to learn how corporate South Africa, especially big business employ greed capitalistic tactics in their procurement processes to benefit a selected few companies mainly those that the powers that be have a relationship with directly and indirectly. How many stories have you had that the big boss has instructed a subordinate to grant or award a business to a company that did not even appear on the bid list. And I am not talking about corruption that has permeated the business-political milieu; I am referring to cases of supreme unscrupulous behavior and fraud by senior executives at the expense of small business development. Contracts get extended for no certain reasons to extend a hand of “broerskap” while procurement processes are being deliberately delayed. I have had many cases where big companies get awarded tender contracts (both public and private tenders) with the proviso or a conditional clause that sub-contracting will be given to the small and emerging enterprises. But when the implementation and execution of those contracts take effect, none of the companies listed as subcontractors appear on the site where the work is done. This is tantamount to daylight robbery of the socio-economic development policies and regulations by perpetrating greed and irresponsibility in the name of capitalistic appetite. There’s plenty of such irresponsible venomous practice by both private and public sector that would, in the long run, cease the developmental path of our nation and halt us back as a developmental state and discourage entrepreneurship to the detriment of economic growth.

The time is opportune for South African leaders to elevate business principles and practices for the benefit of the nation and its development capitalizing on the momentum that the world cup has catapulted. I derive lessons from leadership practices (good and bad) of European and American successful multinationals. When they develop organizational value system, they follow and practice that to the core. There are dedicated publications that celebrate the success of companies with high level of value system that contribute to their sustainable success. One system is the fundamental value of decency and transparency. Like Dov Seidman, the hottest advisor on the corporate virtue circuit globally, I am obsessed with the classic philosopher’s challenge: Live your principles. Seidman maintains that globalization has made it increasingly difficult for companies to differentiate themselves based on their products alone. Whatever your product or service might be, chances are that someone on the other side of the world can copy and sell it for less money. And if money is the only bond between a company and employees, the latter will quit the moment another company offers them more cash. All the more important, then, is for companies to compete at the level of behavior. He says this will be the soft currency of the 21^st century. The world has changed, argues Seidman that the winner takes-all strategies are obsolete. I could not agree with Seidman more. Reputation is one of the fundamental values that would drive companies’ competency and contribute to profitability. The rise of information technology has made good behaviour more important because it has become increasingly hard to hide bad behavior and it’s also becoming more difficult and much harder to manage reputation the old-fashion way, by hiding behind lawyers and crisis-management consultant. Seidman contends that ultimately, the only way to enjoy good reputation is to earn it by living with integrity.  

Vusi Ndala: A psychological leadership character

Vusi Ndala: A psychological leadership character: "To achieve our national goal of becoming a developed nation, South Africa needs leaders with a leadership character of psychological orient..."

A psychological leadership character

To achieve our national goal of becoming a developed nation, South Africa needs leaders with a leadership character of psychological orientation. Yes, a leadership style with a psychological character. This term may be familiar from the literature perspective. But I took liberty to put a different meaning to it. To put it appropriately, I extended the branch of describing the meaning of this term, psychological leadership. It stems from my observations of leadership characters, debates and the state of leadership engagements in South Africa for the past few years mainly on socio, political and economic issues. I apply this term to be relevant to both private and public sector leadership, the latter being inclusive of both politics and government. This term, according my definition, it does not in any manner refer or mean to emphasis literature description of the psychology of leadership/ leadership psychology/ psychological leadership. According to literature, psychology of leadership or leadership psychology, as the terms are used interchangeably, is characterized by a clinical analysis of what leadership is, who's got it, who doesn't and why, etc. According to Judy Gerstel, Health Editor of The Toronto Star in 2001 wrote that Blair and bin Laden, Churchill and Hitler have one thing in common: They persuaded people to follow them. That is psychological leadership, the mental manipulations and persuasions of leaders to those they lead. Another connotation ascribed to this term, is that leaders should know and understand the mental state of those they lead in order to lead them better and successfully.

Mine is not to accentuate this meaning, but to give depth to the already defined literature meaning, the application of known psychological variables of the followers with a strategic intent of building a leadership character that has a positive impact to those that are being led. It is leaders’ challenge to take cognizance of these psychological variables when disposing their leadership responsibilities. The purpose is not to bore you with the fad of defining the art of leadership. My intention is to stimulate your thoughts like I have been by the whims of my passionate observation of leaders’ characters.

My meaning of the leadership style of psychological character simply refers to the in-depth understanding of one self’s state of mental disposition as a leader and insightful recognition of psychological risks of those being led when they aren’t led, supposedly, in the right direction or misled. What are these psychological risks? First, in order to arrive at a common understanding, let’s define what is psychology? Reader’s Digest Word Power Dictionary defines psychology as the scientific study of the human mind and its functions or the mental characteristics or attitude of a person. Out of this definition arose psychologists as professionals to advance and apply the meaning and science of psychology. Being a leader and having studied how the mind works, the characteristics or attitude of a person, I am under the assumption that any leader will be in an advantaged position to lead with a style of psychology. And most notably it would be much easier for a leader to understand the psychological risks of the followers.

Now, the risk of ignoring the psychological risks of those being led, poses higher risks to the integrity of the leader. Simply put, understanding the risks of mental disturbance to the followers when they are misled is akin to a road sign that points you to a direction and remain fixed where it is installed. It does not know whether a place it directs you to is safe, rocky or not. So, a leader should not be like a road sign. A leader points to a direction and lead the followers to that direction in the context of fulfilling their mental state which will possibly with the most likelihood contribute to their healthy minds and thus fruitful contribution to the intended course by a leader and presumably ultimately to the trust, confidence and leader’s integrity. In business and in other organizations filled with the intent to sustainably succeed, the philosophy of getting the followers to buy-in to the leader’s roadmap is through a vision, a philosophical statement that is intended to drive the behavior and attitude of all in the organization to achieve long-term objectives and goals. It begs the question if those leaders have the psychological character in their leadership style, given the slow pace of transformation progress in the corporate sector.  

My reference to psychological risks emanates, as an example, from the service delivery protests and recent public strikes we witnessed in the recent past. Why would citizens in a municipality behave in a way that seeks to destroy property and sabotage infrastructure that they mean to build in the fist place? It doesn’t make sense. Could that be a psychological risk that our leaders could have strategically identified? Take a young boy who smuggles homes as an example. Yes he could be driven by hunger to commit such a crime. But why he could not explore an option of begging for food and instead commit a crime. I would then assume that he was mentally not fit to think that positive, his attitude (negative mental state), which resembles a psychological risk drove him to commit a crime. Looking at it differently, the volley of words and expressions of our political leaders (young and old) that permeate the media more than we could absorb and apprehend resembles a lack of understanding of one’s verve of psychological disposition in the milieu of those being led. Is this a psychological risk for leaders and followers? It is through these and other similar questions in both the private and public sector leadership that triggered and stimulated my thoughts to painstakingly locate the relevant meaning of the type of leadership that is needed in South Africa given the current state of development discourse.