No respect

Yesterday, on the program AGENDA (Cignal-TV), we invited the sought-after speaker and author Jayson Lo to once again share his insights and discoveries during his engagements in corporations as well as with business owners and leaders.

I asked Jayson Lo for the top 10 recurring issues or concerns in the workplace and in response he simply grouped the problems under three major areas: First is when leaders and people distinguish between “Them” and “Us,” particularly with problems, who caused it and where the blame lies. Jayson Lo pointed out that if an organization does not view situations and concerns in the context of “ours” versus “theirs,” it is clear that people are not taking ownership of the bad along with the good.

He mentioned a Gallup study that revealed that generally speaking, only 30 percent take ownership or are “involved.” In the Filipino context, that ownership translates to the word “malasakit.” The rest of the 70 percent are either there because it’s a job, or simply putting in the time and required work for the salary but without ownership or malasakit. In other words, when disaster strikes, don’t count on the whole team to make sacrifices or stick it out.

A contributing factor to this state of affairs has to do with poor selection and recruitment of people as well as job matching, because more often than not key positions are filled under time pressure or “need to.” The selection and vetting are often based on “make over” versions of work and experience, and in the Philippines a large portion is also based on reputation, recommendations or feedback from informal sources such as friends and relatives of the employers.

With the lifting of the one-year ban on hiring political losers in the recent election, we now see groups of people trying to influence the expected recruitment activities of President Bongbong Marcos. Why the President would hire Losers defies logic, given the fact that losing an election is indicative of the fact that you have not made enough of a strong and positive impression on the voters.

The first group trying to influence PBBM are generally the ones calling for real standards and job descriptions and track record in the positions to be made available. These are the ones who prioritize competence over loyalty or political monetary investments and are opposed to using government positions as a reward or a means for ROI or Return On Investments made during the presidential campaign.

To this day there are still a number of Losers who are convinced that they are entitled to such! These are now in the second group, composed of people who have recently become highly visible, media-friendly or user friendly and are actively hiring, paying public relations experts and lobbyists to be in the spotlight and create a surge in public recognition.

If you are now hearing, reading and seeing Losers or generally never-heard of persons yapping and pushing the envelope and talking about issues in a certain field or industry, chances are these people are trying to make themselves look like a “possible choice” or informed individual for a certain government post.

Some are using short-cuts and are currently focusing on getting the endorsement of the Speaker of the House, the First Lady, the Executive Secretary, the Senate President or the head of a church and promising heaven and earth in return for their appointment.

The third group of people are the howlers, individuals in politics, media, NGOs as well as social media pundits who are using their platforms to criticize, attack or ruffle the feathers of the aspiring losers or get their attention in return for favors or enlist their “services” to boost their popularity and public recognition.

A few stragglers in this group are actually hoping to get Malacañang’s attention in the hopes of getting a much lower appointment such as an ambassadorship, bureau chief, a seat on the board of directors of a government corporation, etc. Their strategy is to get a “treat” to make them shut up.

I recently watched a self-promoting potential Cabinet member during an interview and based purely on his performance, it immediately became clear that he did not have the skill and know how to connect to his audience in terms of presence, sincerity and messaging. He was typical of those “informed” or entitled individuals who was offering his ideas and his solutions but completely sidelining simple, daily, real-life concerns of people.

Even worse was the fact that he was not someone “significant,” someone you immediately associated with accomplishments, contributions or commitment. Not knowing him that well, he may in fact have done some good for the public but at face value, I had no idea who he was, what he accomplished and why he and his posse had the gall to believe he could be a Cabinet secretary.

This sort of situation reminds me of what some CEOs and business owners do after an abrupt vacancy takes place in management. They appoint the next person in line, or the nearest possible choice for the position. Two out of three times, that move often causes the Peter Principle to happen at work. The guy who fills the space ultimately reaches his level of incompetence by taking a job he did not apply for or plan on taking.

Promotions are nice if the movement and progressions are planned. Political appointments are necessary, but they should never, never be reward for loyalty or political investment. Those who get appointed eventually end up with an invisible bullseye or target on their back. Career officials have no respect for them and therefore no ownership in their appointment and we in the media hold them in contempt for being incompetent or undeserving. This is part of the reason why media and the public don’t respect political appointees, because they did not work for it!

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]