I was in an agri-show a few weeks ago and there, I met Ray.

Ray was the herd dog that was herding five ducks in a show to demonstrate how dogs can be good shepherd with proper training.

The ducks went into different obstacle challenges with Ray not barking once, but pre-empting the ducks' movements, nudging them to take a certain direction, and lastly, blocking their way so that they have no choice but to take the challenge.

It was a great experience to learn and see how Ray was a patient, methodical, and strategic herd.

I likened this to leaders who are trying their best to show their followers the way.

Through nudges, incentives and rewards, pre-emptions, and strategic blocks, leader fine-tune their styles to suit the temperaments of their team, the objectives at hand, and the process they had to be girded on. 

Herding is a process that requires high relational quotient. if your team doesn't trust you, your herding is scorned and ridiculed. 

Your attempts to pre-empt and redirect will be taken in contempt and mistaken to be self-serving.

Your nudges and subtle reminders will be ignored.

Like Ray, you don't need to bark to show them the way.

​Your subtle gestures are loud enough to warrant paying attention. 

I was talking to a coordinator of a research institute a few weeks ago and we talked about how community supporters can help in bridging the academe with community issues through their involvement and advice in their institute. 

Good idea, right?

Well, this idea is not new and had been proposed for several years but the supervisor refused to budge on the topic for various reasons: Money, adding up to work, etc.

When bureaucracy says no, almost all the time, it's just protecting the status quo and eliminating any threats to its  state of being. Community involvement means work but it will open up the institute to far greater input, new ideas, new partners, which will then lead to greater impact.

Results are not what bureaucracies are for, in general. When questioned, they tend to have a zero vision about outcomes, impacts, or resonance with real-world issues.

If our academic institutions are solely run on past successes and are afraid of building allies, then we should all be worried about our future generation!

I immigrated in Canada with nothing.

Okay, two luggage and a box and I stayed with my uncle for a few months until I got a job.

But, during those times, I only have my past education and work experiences as my assets.

The rest, I had to quickly build, such as social networks through networking, referrals, information interviews, and so on.

With the fact that there were thousands of job seekers during that time, I considered my journey far less arduous than my counterparts. I got a full-time job after two months.

As I was talking with a colleague of mine a few weeks ago.

We realized that it's not ethnicity, religious background, accent, culture, or education that will move your career.

It's about your talent, discipline, and good attitude.

The fact that these components are not overly emphasized during the interview process bothered me.

It's not the company DEI or their preferential treatment that will increase employee engagement. It's the overall ability of the organization to spot and nurture talent whoever they are and wherever they come from in the world.

The battle for the best talent in major companies is truly the grittiest.

No one know where these best talents are but if you look closer, they can come in different stripes and shapes. 

They are the people in your neighborhood that you wouldn't necessarily get their CVs from your employees, networks, or professional circles.

If you're willing to try a newcomer for a job, they are also willing to try their destiny on you.

How about that? 
​