How come everytime I am stabbed in the back, the fingerprints are my own? believe it or not, is the title of Prof Jerry B Harvey\’s second book. His first was The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations of Management .

Jerry was one of the weirdest teachers I\’ve met. His immediate response, after listening to my ideas about \’dignity in the workplace\’ – my dissertation topic – was \”you do not want me to be your professor!\”

He is an all-American Texan who speaks with a drawl and sits with his cowboy boots on the table.

I gently disagreed with him, but started working for him as a research assistant. After three years, I asked him to come on board my dissertation advisory panel as a proponent for my thesis. I had concluded that \”some of us would rather learn some things the harder way\”.

After eight drafts and umpteen meetings, Jerry finally approved my dissertation proposal. Yet, after the proposal was tabled and reviewed by a committee of six, he was the only one to give conditional approval.

The chairperson and two other committee members told me to ask Jerry to leave as one of my advocates before the final presentation. The chairperson and I met Jerry in his room to make the request and he happily agreed with the parting statement that \”this is the best decision you have made in your doctoral programme\”.

Then he continued: \”As I have told you before, most students only want my advice but few really want me on their committee because, in your language John, I have God-like standards.\”

Jerry continues to be one of my favourite professors and someone I also consider to be a teacher. Jerry lived out what he taught and has since retired.

One day, I hope to send him something I\’ve written, something to the level of perfection that he expects. I promised him that I would do it \”before I turn 64\”, to borrow from an old song.

But I am also waiting for the round of golf he owes me from a wager of US$25, and hope to meet him again in Washington DC to claim my game.

Paradox applied

Now why would Jerry write a book which assumes that the fingerprints on the knife used to stab someone belong to that very person? To really appreciate his theory, one has to better understand the phenomenon he calls \’the Abilene Paradox\’.

The paradox describes common actions of all groups and organisations that lead them in a direction in which they never really wanted to go – and after they get there, they end up blaming everyone else but themselves for their predicament.

In short, most people never admit their own failures or role in making the wrong decisions or defining the wrong directions. They do not accept full responsibility for not doing the right things in the right way and with the right attitude.

In fact, a Bowling Green University study has found that the Abilene Paradox was the most popular managerial metaphor among most CEOs in the US. They could readily relate to this metaphor and it helped them explain many issues in their work life. It even out-voted concepts like the Maslow\’s Hierarchy of Needs and Hertzberg\’s Two-Factor Theory.

Over my last 15 years of public service, I have been a witness to many phenomena related to such actions and decisions. I did not want to be a part of these, which is why I opted for early retirement from the PTD service. I did not want to take the trip to Abilene with my so-called bosses either.

Whenever we apply the Abilene Paradox to any managerial setting, we soon find out that there are many situations where members do not speak up for truth of their own feelings but allow either the noisy or loud few or the \’power rangers\’ to carry the day and the decision.

But in Jerry\’s lexicon, they are all equally responsible for the \”trip to Abilene, including those who have kept quiet\”. The fingerprints are as much their own; there is no \’back-stabbing\’ if they knew about the issue but chose not to speak up, whatever the reason. Expanding on this, there can thus be no back-stabbing at all.

\"\"

Last week\’s headlines in the New Straits Times reminded me of the Abilene Paradox, especially since our former prime minister implied that the current PM has stabbed him in the back by withdrawing many of the projects approved and agreed to by the cabinet that they both served.

Jerry would say that the cabinet took many trips to Abilene and that some of the bad decisions have come home to roost. He would argue that both are equally responsible for decisions past and present because they are part and parcel of a cabinet of the same government.

I personally do not see Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) as a paradigm shifter in managerial terms. He is only continuing much of the same but with slight tinkering here and there. The fact that he has not paradigm-shifted is my pet peeve him today.

I hear from the corridors of power that \”similar bad decisions\” and \”crony project awards\” are being made; including the alleged closing of an eye to companies directly connected to the PM\’s son. I hope I am wrong, but I have heard from almost the horse\’s mouth.

Real paradigm shift

On Jan 13, 2004, I attended the PM\’s Dialogue with Industry made up of almost 500 CEOs and captains of private/public industry. The whole cabinet was there as well. I was privileged to ask the PM a question within the context of the public services delivery that he had promised to improve.

\"\"

I asked him how he planned to shift paradigms when most civil servants sign off letters with the phrase Saya yang menurut perintah (I who follow orders) . I then suggested that unless we change the sign-off into the words Saya yang bertanggungjawab (I who is responsible), there may not be any creativity or paradigm shifts in terms of public services delivery.

The PM agreed and commended me publicly for the suggestion and even privately promised to discuss the matter in the cabinet. Since then, on another occasion, the PM verbally allowed me to remind him about this suggestion until it is actually raised, discussed and agreed to in cabinet. This article seeks to remind the PM of the same.

Public services delivery has not improved as promised by the PM during the 2004 election campaign. Now, there is an even newer promise that the 9th Malaysia Plan will be the panacea for all our problems. In a word, the PM\’s analysis of the problem is \’implementation\’, or the lack of proper execution.

I like the 9MP agenda but am not convinced that it can merely be achieved by rearranging the furniture on the Titanic that we call the Malaysian Growth with Equity Model. I cannot see the \”new value growth thesis\” from the macro-model and framework used in the 9MP.

\"\"

Where is the new value creation coming from? How are we going to remain attractive to FDI, the traditional financial injection for our economic development? In light of the performance of new giants China and India, do we seriously believe that outsourcing alone will attract the quantum of FDI needed under the 9MP?

Some of us have conducted alternative modeling and analysis but the real story related to a rising China is very much more serious than we have cared to admit. I am sorry, but the current 9MP does not answer the question and core issues addressed by Kenichi Ohmae\’s original McKinsey Team in relation to the leapfrog factor. Their leapfrog factor was new \’K-value growth\’.

What is Malaysia\’s new value creating industry? Outsourcing is only a body-shop role, not new value creation. Where is our new growth capital coming from? These questions remain unanswered by the 9MPs.

The Global Knowledge Malaysia team, formerly of the NITC Secretariat, has some of the answers. These have been presented but the ideas have yet to see the light of day. The current planners always seem to know better and therefore, our core ideas remain outside the 9MP.

Parochial interests

To my mind, the cabinet is taking and will continue to take a trip to Abilene. There is no serious alternative policy advice within the current public, private and civil society structure. Most ideas are only half-baked ones as argued by the former PM.

The cabinet is full of yes-men and women who, equally, surround themselves with other yes-men and women as advisors.

The former PM may not know this, but a George Washington University professor once wrote a paper about the \”socio-psychological profile of disabled leaders\” and defined them as \”those to whom the policy advisors do not tell the whole truth because of the fear of losing their jobs\”.

\"\"

My comment to Dr Mahathir Mohamad is this: it is not that you did not select good leaders to advise or replace you; it\’s just that all advisors, like the tailors in the story about the naked emperor, start telling one small lie (often in the name of a half-truth) and then spin out a whole yarn around the original lie until they are found out. In the meantime, they believe their own lie and live it out.

The cabinet is our key executive authority. If they are wrong, facts and figures can and must be used to prove them wrong. If not, we have to publicly debate and argue until we all can agree on the real issues at hand.

Pak Lah has opted for the \’servant leadership\’ model of administration. This uses influence rather than power and authority to make decisions. Such a model allows for open dialogue and rational debate. Therefore, he appears weak sometimes and appears to listen too much and make the wrong decisions.

I am concerned and have, in fact, called upon Pak Lah to be aware that he is losing traditional support because of loss of his integrity. But the abandonment of the half-bridge project (even if linked to the sovereignty issue) or of some pet mega-project cannot be used to accuse him of stabbing someone in the back. The fingerprints are very much your own and all ours as well, as Malaysians who elected the new government.

\"\"

The real back-stabbing, in my view, is when the BN Whip is used to shut up Shahrir Abdul Samad on a matter of the integrity of Parliament. Or when the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) is given free rein to speak against approved government policy on the proposed police watchdog body – or when he goes against public-service principles and forces non-Muslims to wear the tudung , even if only for ceremonial occasions.

How can we fight corruption if, at the level of local authorities, there is blatant disregard for the rule of law? And when most council heads behave like little emperors that are very naked!

It is amazing that today\’s cabinet has ministers accused of corruption but who have yet to be cleared by Anti-Corruption Agency; and ministers who have allegedly abused government policy for sectarian interests.

There are also nine ministers (and leaders of political parties) whose memorandum on Article 11 of the constitution – a matter of serious national interest – was rejected by the prime minister, who is only primus inter pares .

Real back-stabbing in Jerry\’s language happens when the public interest of the majority of Malaysians is denied in favour of the interests of a minority. Mahathir should continue to speak up but should also not expect to be treated as more than an ordinary citizen.

Maybe he should write to express his views if there is no other way to make himself heard. Even the Tunku did that. The pen-name \’Che Det\’ still waits to be used.