Transformation and integrity

The word ‘transformation,’ like ‘integrity,’ is a multi-dimensional word. Let me therefore start by first explaining integrity and how I understand it to make my case and then move to the other word, which is much more complex.

I am always bothered by the abuse and misuse of such words by all and sundry without just cause or purpose. Marketing and advertising people appear the worst; then are the media journalists. By the end of this column, the reader would understand the reasons for my rant.

Let me first set the context for this column. In today’s world of media-driven realities, we almost have to believe what is reported by media, and there are currently a multiplicity of them. Next, after having read many different reports about the issues at hand, one can come to a rational conclusion about the matter.

Let me take one example. Osama bin Laden ( left ) is dead! True? Who knows with first-hand validity and reliability that this is an absolute and truth statement? I heard the presidential statement about it, heard multiple views and analyses about it, and read also “unpopular views about it.”  I am convinced that he is in fact dead and that his body was thrown into the sea, apparently with Islamic burial decorum.

That final act alone however I would question, as to the rationale (who defined the intentions for such a burial) and who actually fulfilled those proper rights with correct protocol. These issues too will come out in the days ahead. Finally, the al-Qaeda have also reported that he is in fact dead.

Now let me come to the text of issues of my real concern in this column. The Malaysian Institute of Directors (MID) recently honoured PM Najib Abdul Razak “with the ‘ Bapa Transformasi Malaysia \’ title and inducted him as an MID Honorary Fellow in recognition of the Economic Transformation Plan and Government Transformation Programme to transform Malaysia into a high-value, high-income country by 2020,” reported the Star .

To me, the MID appear to be abusing this word, ‘transformation,’ in the same way ‘integrity’ as a word have been much abused.  Please allow me to explain. Wikipedia defines integrity as follows:

Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one\’s actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy , [1] in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.

One’s talk is bigger than one’s walk

My simple equivalent definition for integrity is that there should not be a gap between one’s espoused theory and one’s applied theory or the theory-in-use. Or in Malay, one accuses,“ cakap tak serupa bikin .” The Americans assert when one’s talk is bigger than one’s walk.

Let us now move and consider the even bigger concept of ‘transformation.’ Transformation happens in the physical science of biology when a black and ugly looking caterpillar turns into a butterfly. That is one clear and good symbolic definition of transformation.

Transformation also happens in leadership when the relationship between leader and follower transcend from a mere transactional model towards a higher model wherein the follower becomes super-motivated to translate the vision of a leader without being encouraged any further. The transformer is now within the follower.

For example, it was transformational leadership when President John F Kennedy set the mission of sending man to the moon and the American science and technology community actually was motivated by it and fulfilled that mission.

It was transformational leadership when Martin Luther King Jr ( left ) led the march of freedom from slavery and then wrote his Letter from Jail in Birmingham. Because of MLK, today Americans were transformed to vote a Black (or at least a half-Black) president) into office.

But while appreciating these examples of transformation, let me also say that the same Wikipedia dictionary does not have a simple or clear definition for transformation which explains all the various and different applications of the concept in different fields of knowledge. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has one good and applied definition for our general knowledge:

Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems. In its ideal form, it creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal of developing followers into leaders. Enacted in its authentic form, transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale and performance of his followers through a variety of mechanisms.

These include connecting the follower\’s sense of identity and self to the mission and the collective identity of the organisation; being a role model for followers that inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that optimise their performance. 

A transformational leader yet?

Now, on the above definition is PM Najib a transformational leader yet? Worse still, can we call him a “father of transformation” of this nation yet? I am sorry but it is too early and careless for such frivolous awards to be made. In fact, if Najib knew about it beforehand and had the wisdom, he should never have accepted it.

We all know and understand that Tunku Abdul Rahman ( right ) was Bapa Merdeka . Likewise Dr Mahathir Mohamad, at least in my dictionary, was Father of Modern Malaysia because he ushered in ‘modernity’ as a worldview into Malaysian lifestyle. He unfortunately also ushered with it, filthy rich Malays. 

But, can we call Najib who has not even been elected prime minister in his own right, or even finished one term, as Father of Malaysian Transformation just because he developed and appears to have sold the 1Malaysia agenda and slogan, and her application programmes?

He may be called this after he has served three terms and Malaysia is well on the way to become a high-income nation and a developed one in our own mould by 2020. For any father to exist the child he fathered must be visible. And after all, his was Father of Development in Malaysia.

Therefore, I would like the Malaysian Institute of Directors to explain their rationale and logic for making this “award” and please justify the public truth of such a matter. My contention is that there is and cannot be such truth claims, at least not yet.

The Malaysian Institute of Directors has to show leadership by example and presumably demonstrate good governance, so I expect no less from all of you. Please explain yourself or expose the falsity of such claims and apologise to the PM for “trying to be politically correct but essentially lying.” May God continue to bless Malaysia.