Best comments in 2012

1.Opening positions have been laid out by both sides on how to avoid fiscal cliff. Let the games begin? http://ht.ly/fbg8c #sbfi CEO/ CIO/COE/COO/CFO/Head/VP/ Director/President Level 11-11-2012

It is hard if not impossible to overcome the financial cliff, if both party refuse to budge on the trade-off and there will be no deal. The crux to move the deal is to make the negotiation transparent under the spotlight to the public. After all, the house and the administration are accountable to the public, with the public surveillance; there will be no secret move. This incentivizes both parties to make calculated move, call for moral probity to prevent inducing electorate repugnant and nettlesome, and being labeled brazen stumbling block, hobble to reach a sensible solution. One large hindrance last year was to make Mr. Obama ineffective, so that he would lose the election game, but now it is over; GOP hardliners may lay new hurdles ahead, for sure, there will be no plain sail or obeisant Republicans.

Besides indulged in the political game; the real impasse is resulting from stark chasm in ideologies which both parties fastidiously cling to; where GOP advocates cross the board tax cut and Democrats want to tax the rich. Republican believes in small government to trim public administration costs, increases defense spending, cut entitlements, restructure the healthcare system. By so doing, the Republican believe will stop the deep malaise and the budget deficit will turn the corner.

I am a nonbeliever of tax cut will increase tax revenue due to increase in investment and employment. But it seems you can’t change the ingrained waffles in the battleground. And you can’t have the cake and eat it too. It would be lucky to prevent the economic Armageddon if Republican and the Democrat are willing to concede some of their core ideologies in exchange for their top most priorities.

The ultimate purpose is: after taking plus and minus factors of a welter of the budget items will result in a net surplus, the administration will need to do sand table exercise to quantify the items in ballpark term (but in no qualm is credible); what the financial impacts likely will be for particular item and how does it link to the bigger picture (The qualitative considerations)?  Since the Republican ideologies are crystal clear to the administration, the same exercise is also done on the Republican side. The administration will then have a good grasp of their priorities. What are they prepared to trade and which would worsen the deficits and should not trade.

You can just keep running the same old groove! Be more flexible to concede and it is always carp diem to play on the time factor to smooth the hitches; such as the healthcare costs in the long run probably not sustainable, constant review and radical reform the sector to ensure it is a reasonable portion of the budget and affordable  to all Americans are of paramount importance. This plays on the time smoothing factor.

Once the gridlock is broken, it would be much easier to acclimate and contain the debt ceiling problem

.2. In Singapore, people are usually impressed by those who work long hours. I am not. Don’t fool yourself: less is more. Asia Jobs, Careers and Networking 1 Nov 2012

In Singapore, now, more than at any other time, that the government stresses work life balance. My trade required me to survive the gauntlet of long work hours is a fait accompli.

Harkening back, this was what my boss told me on the first day to work. I needed to clock up a bare minimum of thirteen hours a day to justify my pay. My boss even got his assistant to carry out surveillance to ensure I didn't go back before nine. I had to work on Saturday and Sunday once in a month just to catch up the deadline to the hilt. I was entrusted and also badgered to key the secret numbers on the door device to open the door that drove me nut; I had to arrive in office earlier than other colleagues just to open the door, and the last one to leave, around nine, also for the secret numbers. I felt bored to death and ensnared in the work with no choice but to abide the practice of what my peers in the trade adhered to.

In my view, my boss should measure my output than the amount of time I stayed in the office. He should emphasize the quality of the outcome of my work to judge whether I worth the salt. To my dismay, I worked in an US MNC with the wrong work culture that held no currency. In retrospect, my boss got every cent worth out of my contribution. What was horrendous, at my presence, he showed off to his business friend how he got me for a pittance, a real value for money. I felt bedevilled  disgusted of the unpalatable gibberish on the spot.

Work life balance improves productivity of work, because the worker is given time to divert to other interests to reduce stress and recharge, hence enhances productivity. The work culture must emphasize performance than be a wonk. That boils down to the organization philosophy what is the essence of sagacious management resulting good work practice. Bad work practice comes home to roost.

3. Hard Skills vs. Soft Skills (The recruiter network) 31 Oct 2012

To begin, a concise definition in between hard skills and soft skills need straighten out for discussion to be meaningful.

Laconically, the consensus definition about hard skills is occupational to perform certain type of task or activities. Hard skills are easy to observe, specific, and trainable such as job skills like accounting, finance, programing etc. To be good at hard skills needs IQ, the left brain logical center. Hard skills can be learnt by attending educational institution or book reading. In hard skills, rules always stay the same regardless of which company, circumstance or people you work with.

Soft skills are people skills, behavioral, which relates to a person ability to interact effectively. Soft skills are personality driven. It usually associates with EQ, the cluster of personal traits, social graces, communication, language, personal habits, friendliness, and optimism that characterize relationships with other people. In soft skills, rules changes depending on the company culture and people you work with.

Which is important to a leader’s success? My view is it is circumstantial. At times, hard skills rank primary, and soft skills are secondary. Other times, soft skills are primary and hard skills secondary. Let me illustrate by a real life example, how a highly paid CEO lacking the essential hard skill was reviled by the public, ousted from power and fell from grace.

A public transport company's CEO, who is ignorant of risk management, encountered her greatest test in her business career. One of the trains broke down without light and air in the cabin; passengers were hemmed in excruciating situation. A pregnant woman was frail and had difficulty in breathing; one passenger took the initiative to break the glass to let air flowing into the cabin from tunnel. The company did not realize how severe the situation was that reverberated and piqued the public, the public’s opprobrium heaped on her requesting the CEO to step-down. The CEO apologized and resigned.

What this relates to our discussion? The problem is there were no risk management procedures in place. The company did not have all round enterprise risk management evaluation. Such train breakdown is an operation risk bound to occur, there must be procedures detailing how employee should respond when situation exacerbates into a convulsive crisis. At what circumstances, the crisis mode must be activated; for example, if the electricity cut-off for more than ten minutes, that will trigger safety measures to evacuate passengers to emergency exit. It is a painful hard skill she did not learn, that cost her millions dollar job. If she had the risk management skill, she would have responded to the crisis better. This is where hard skills were primary and soft skills were secondary.

During the crisis, incessant communication with the passengers came to the fore. If hard skills were absent, soft skills ascended to primary. However, the train driver’s ineptitude lacked the EQ and communication skills that was the bereft of hope.

Skillset is a lifelong learning process, whether it is hard or soft.  I am still learning and improving along in my career. Some say senior leader does not need to horn their hard skills because they have exceptional soft skills, their wisdom to maneuver political landscape in an organization bestrides the company. That is half true. 

The vicissitude of business world demands business leader to be equally good at both. For example change management which requires business leader to galvanize the support from various factions of different interests in the course of change process. That draws on soft skills. Business leader needs to keep up to technology progress, such as leveraging social media as a marketing tool to facilitate sales growth, which is a hard skill. When times come, you are equipped with the right skills to tackle different new problems at different circumstances.

Snizhana, Thank you for your comment.

Integrity is an exhibit of behavior. Learning soft skills is the approach towards that desirable behavior.   Integrity is to behave ethically. Most research concur that environmental factor exerts significant influence in our integrity. I learned ethics in professional examination- code of conduct, and later in CPA firm that how partners carried out duties by observing guideline. The right culture is of paramount importance in the organization help to promote exhibit the right behavior. 

I recently read a book, written by a psychology professor, titled “The (Honest) truth about dishonesty” by Dan Ariely. He experimented why there is no black and white, as human being, to behave honestly. Most of us fall into the grey category. Especially on trivial matters, we are less than upright. That show we have two facets in us. Of course, those are academic exercises. I believe we are confined to behave more ethically in a setting emphasizes the right behavior. We feel guilty if we transgress.

4. Compelling proof that tax cuts do not create job from Laura Tyspn & Owen Zidar. GOP should find another excuse? http://ht.ly/eBxdd #sbfi CEO/ CIO/COE/COO/CFO/Head/VP/ Director/President Level - Senior...

I am all for the assertion that tax cuts do not stimulate more job creation.

My view on tax is neutral, to increase or cut tax basically is situation warranted. It is impregnable that if you have budget deficit, I can’t think of alternatives other than to increase tax rate to improve tax collection or to postpone tax hike and be more tolerant of budget deficit, awaiting the economy fully recovered.

I am leery the whole idea of tax cut and I think it is specious, obfuscate reality and stretch to a great length of credulity indeed. So to say for tax cut on individual: Use your common sense, which you believe is the reality that the consumer is impinged on hearing the tax cut's news, the department stores are responded with more consumers who are willing to spend more because they are wealthier another $100 dollars than yesterday, or you think most of them are impervious? I see no conclusive empirical evidence to support the assertion that tax cuts do improve consumption; it is just practically difficult to substantiate the assertion that there is a change in consumer behavior.

Dickering on higher bracket individual income tax payers is flabby, even there is a few percentage tax rate increases, and the impact on total tax revenue collection is insignificant, because the number who pay higher tax is relatively small. No one likes to pay more tax, we are all self-centered, politician has to ineluctably redistribute the increase based on fairness, but there is no absolute fairness and only relative fairness. And tax should not be only one way up or down, it should fall when the budget returns to surplus and after account for future expansion and contingency.

The theory of supply-side economists’ tax cut on company tax is even fallible and untenable. I live in a country cut company tax rigorously and it becomes one of the tax competitive countries in the world.

In my twenty years' professional career, during the budget days, none of the CEOs asked me to work out how much tax savings for the tax cut pronounced. There are two possible reasons. One, The CEOs were laymen in taxation. Two, they were disenchanted, the amount was pretty paltry not worth attention. Especially when the economy is frailed or slips into recession, most companies are either incurring losses or making few crumb of profit. If company incurs tax losses, there is no tax liability; what benefit can derive from tax cut?

Even a company makes a small tax adjusted profit, For example, an amount of $30,000, a 1 or 2 % tax cut work out only few hundred bucks. How this few hundred bucks make the wonder to improve economic growth; boost investment (adding new plant and equipment) and employment (adding new hire)? Probably the savings is going to be part of the CEO big bonuses. I impugn and better to leave this hoary old joke and cliché to class room teaching.

Politicians are also quick to lower business tax in order to improve competitiveness, and leaving a cinch to make up the shortfall by increasing other taxes, such as value added tax. They pontificate uncompetitive tax rate will result in business moving overseas, creating unemployment problems due to more plant closures. The fact is cut tax does not prevent businesses moving overseas.

In reality, business leader does not assess their investment based on tax rate alone. There are a host of factors under consideration including the purpose of investment (such as company just wants to have easy access to R & D in advanced country.). Even a country has higher tax rate, but it plays its ace on other factors, such as infrastructure, education, better business opportunities, better market potential etc., it can still be the choice of investment.

According to Wall Street Journal's report, many of the listed companies are making profit, it is unwise to give away tax revenue by cutting tax or give tax relief to profitable companies when you have a large budget deficit. Tax relief should be given to ailing companies to facilitate healing, a good example is payroll tax, if companies incurred adjusted tax loss, and have no tax liability but may have to pay payroll tax. Full refund will allow healing and alleviate burden. Business makes Capital expenditure decision on business outlook. Giving tax relief to plant and equipment to boost economy is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.

5.  Is it more important for a great leader to be better at listening to others or communicating their vision?

A great leader with listening ears does not preclude her to communicate her vision. It shouldn't be an either-or thesis which belies the fact that a vision is not a top-down ritualistic paean. A great leader would incorporate voice from the ground in setting up her vision. In the interactive process, leader is in touch of the reality, knows her shortfalls, and when and how to educate followers for a better vision when need arises.

Leader is in touch of the reality, exchanges mindsets, refrained from my way pointing to the high road and is the only way. Then leader and follower will share a common vision: the purpose, the direction, what challenges are they facing ahead, and how together they resolve them. A great leader leads by acknowledging her shortcomings in vision, there is nothing shameful about it.

There is time follower may not fully appreciate a great vision which as a whole benefit the organization, a great leader will show patience to transform the mindsets of the followers, this education process to iron out discordant vision may be long and winding, no mean feat. The nub hinging on leader must ensure they are always in the same page, so that they have common understanding; Great leader enlightens followers all the way to visualize better, canvasses for the support hither and thither. In the course, great leader will achieve buy-in of her vision.

6. Lower growth in China not necessarily a bad thing: economist Jobs Connect Asia 1 October 2012

I beg to have disparate view.

A stronger growth in China is much anticipated .A structural transformation of economy takes times to accomplish. A stronger growth is not unbecoming; it does not preclude China economic restructuring. 

But the crux of the current global economic problem is devoid of demand and monetary policy is not functioning as anticipated. It becomes an apocalyptic warning that large economies must strive to expand internal consumption and investments cater for much needed audacious stimulus to world economy.

China can epitomize a pivotal role to reflate demand that will give a seminal boost to domestic and global economy.

7.  QE3 targets mortgage bond buying intended to spur job growth in housing sector. Is this something we can build on? http://ht.ly/dHZtY #sbfi 16 September 2012 CEO/ CIO/COE/COO/CFO/Head/VP/ Director/President Level -...

With regard to QE3, Fed assumed there was strong correlation between increase in money supply and job growth. The kernel of the truth is that link is rather weak; especially under the big picture of current global economic environment and the deleveraging process in US and her major trading partners. It has yet a cogent and conclusive proof, and I impugn that US’s economic recovery ascribable to QE’s strong boost.  I might be wrong; the upside of QE as a magic elixir is rather limited, but it downright spurs inflation in other regions inflicted the agony. (Of which has had proven, an irrefutable fact, not a mere wild guess; oil and commodity prices surged upon Fed’s QE pronouncement).

8. Opinion from China People's Daily offers perspective from the other side. How to turn rhetoric into progress? http://ht.ly/drEZU #sbfi

The Sino-US’s tie is entangled in a much more complex web than the article elaborated. Both sides contributed to the discords in bilateral tie. The discords are not devastating, but the inveterate differences will engender conflicts.

First, it is the US foreign military policy shifted to AP region; it has taken into accounts the hypothetical enemy during military confrontation. It is palpable that China is the hypothetical enemy. The shrewd Chinese knew this, judging from their beleaguered position from US allies. That hardened their stance in South China Sea, that strategic aisle becomes crucial for importing strategic materials during wartime.

Their rabid allegation of South China Sea territorial boundary is based on Kau Line (U shape Line) following their definition of China’s territory: all the territories of the People's Republic of China, including the Chinese mainland and offshore islands and the mainland and offshore island separated from the high seas of Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Dongsha Islands, Xisha, Zhongsha Islands, the Nansha Islands and other islands belonging to China.

Their rapid military build-up in recent year manifests contemplation that they may be at war with the US one day, and they are eager to showcase their military might. Of course tension flared-up at South China Sea and along East Sea will not result in pulling US or China waging war against each other. Both sides are loath to act precipitately, spend unnecessary resources against each other for no apparent advantage.

The beleaguered China hankered to gang up with Russia to confront possible military threat. It is illustrated by how China jibed with Russia at Security Council veto sanction against Syria. They are ally now partly due to historically ideological confluence, and partly because of the international reality.

Of course, the conflict, not restricted to scrum at international arena, it also reflects chink in ideology, economic and social aspects.  The Sino-US relationship is not egregious foe, neither will they walk together, but they are intertwined in many facets that sometimes they are forced to work together, at least for the foreseeable future.

9. Singapore workers less loyal to firms: Survey(Executive Suite) 26 Aug 2012

It may be true, but there are several reasons behind it:

First, there are firms who are devoid of cultivating an organization culture that is conducive. There is no sense of purpose and mission and impelled to complete tasks that are parochial they can’t see the gamut of task significance.

Second, the newer generation set different priorities in life. Understanding their goal and priorities are of paramount importance to keep them more than just to increase few hundred bucks.

Third, there are quite a few of new employees fail to adapt to new environment and companies fail to mentor new employees making them keep trying new one, merry-go-round; perpetuate them keep job hopping never succeed to set foot in any new employers.

Forth, Human resources failed to analyze reasons for quick employee’s turnaround, and adopt remedial actions, such as using exit interview to gather information. Human Resources fail to research competitive market salary information, and advise management to adjust accordingly that infuriate some employees. Human Resources fail to hire more mature workers which they are more stable in their career life.

There are myriad of reasons that people jump ship.  What is paramount is Human Resources are saddled to peel through seeing the causes, and rev up corrective actions. Bashing does not solve any problems. Remember, for any relationship to endure you need to reciprocate.

10. What’s more important:- people or money? to a start-up company CEO/CIO/COE 23 July 2012

It is a putative response that you need both resources in any start-up. Which is more important is the corollary of the scarcity of the resources available to you and circumstantiality. If you have abundant of capital to cater for the demanding cash burn rate for a predetermined budgeted period of time, then propensity is skewed towards people.

People usually are not critical under present business environment, such as in the US that the unemployment rate is high up at 8.2%, but talent is.  Talent is scarce and more critical, you need the sort of talent to complement your competency, act as evil advocate to question your business assumptions and propositions.

Talent offers you nifty ideas when you are in a quandary to decide whether to go ahead or throw in the tower to call it quit come on the heels of business wilted after the predetermined trial period. At this decisive moment, the stalemate to continue to give more time for customer acceptance or redirect resources for better use is not an easy decision indeed if you are deeply involved in the business process. At this juncture, it is palpable that talent is important, because you need judicious advice.

The people issue is important only during the incipient start-up as to how you calibrate people into a coherent whole to advance your business, it is imminent once again you need talent.

     If you have depleted your cash reserve and can’t resolve a princely sum of funding       issue, then, even talent is a minnow.

11.  .How to handle "you're overqualified!" in interviews? Ever had to cope with this situation? Read more and share your experience! (Finance Plus) 14 July 2012

There is no easy solution to the problem. I recently read an article on LinkedIn, the author suggested two ways. One was lateral move; another was to strike a deal with the prospective employer for faster promotion; moving to a lower position was a clever move if you were moving to a bigger company with better prospect, the author thought.

I see this overqualified issue quite differently. Why after all there is an overqualified issue? It is because there are more job applicants than the jobs. It is because the job applicant is eager to sacrifice to eke a living. It is because you are unemployed that you think it would be a faster way to get back to the workforce. You are shorn yourself deep to give the prospective employer a clear advantage, pay less for more.

Does it solve the problem? It doesn’t. It is an unpalatable choice to both parties. To the candidate, it is a move causing psychological imbalance, the motivation is to fulfill her basic needs, rather than earn a prospect with the company. There is a tainted mark in your career history that prospective employers or search firm put a question mark on your capability in the future you make a downward move unless you can provide a satisfactory answer. Don’t forget they have a pool of candidates to choose from. You are setting up yourself to satiate now at the expense of your future. To the company, the talented candidate would probably not feel motivated to perform well, because she feels bored by the easy job, her capability is underutilized. So, why recruit an overqualified candidate in the first place?

Ideally, a company with a fair culture should give every candidate a fair chance, whether she is employed or not, young or old. It is how the company matches the candidate to the long term human resource strategy.  Equal opportunity is the mantra, an ethic for any human resources management. But it seems such a company is quite few and remote, at least whimsical in my career life.

And life must go on, I am not bedeviled of how people see me as desperate, it is exactly the predicament. I slot my application for every opportunity that appears to be good fit. I don’t have the luxury of being choosy and hope the luck will work things out. And this is not a laughing matter because I am up against the headwind in the job search that nothing falls into my lap and the fly by the seat approach only need one to pick me up and I am there. My approach looks Neanderthal and out of whack, but that is natural for everyone to live their life. I would like to hear any elixir, a sure fire way that offer a shortcut to get a job. It is borne out by my job search experience that there is none.

Harkening back to the issue, it boils down to the fact that we are all hemmed in to the paradigm that we conform and assume it is a right practice. Everyone does things this way, what is the problem? To change the paradigm is insuperable, an uphill task and it takes time.

12. .Why You Shouldn't Take a Counteroffer - On Careers (usnews.com) Finance & Accounting   9 July 2012

There is no right or wrong answer as to whether you should take a counteroffer though I read many career books advised not to look back.

It depends on the organization culture and how the new job meant to you and why you want to look for greener pasture elsewhere? You should look beyond pecuniary reason when considering counteroffer.

In my past experience, as long as I tendered my resignation letter, the management team immediately drew line with me, because I was no longer part of their team. This happens frequently in owner-run companies and competitive culture organization.

Not all counteroffers have inimical impacts endanger your prospect with the departing company, as what the theory goes that the perception of your loyalty now being cast in doubt. I see this kind of trust and loyalty as fragile, it belies the fact that in contemporary world job security is no longer a guarantee. The mutual trust factor is precarious; your career can at any time takes a dicey twist just like what happened to me.

The article suggested that the company may pretend to give counteroffer in order to give them more time to find a replacement or in situation you are indispensable for a big project which is underway. These are disparate views; few unscrupulous companies would conduct foul play. The point is when there is counteroffer; it means you have the value to the company. If you are deadwood, probably the employer would be quick to wish you Good-bye.

      You need to ponder over the pros and cons of accepting the offer and the uncertain factors                     with the new company and the inspiring reasons why you chose to jump ship. Your relationship with the departing company should be amicable, so that in the course of time it can withstand reference check by prospective employer. There certainly your lot is at stake, you need to take certain calculated risk whichever option is taken. You shouldn't regret if you are judicious enough to give each option serious contemplation.

13.     5 Tips On How To Change Horrible Bosses  (CFO) 13 June 2012

The tips are useful. It is hard though not impossible to change a boss, lest breaking your own rice bowl. Most of the time, it is the organization culture that exacerbates the temperament of bosses. In my experience, large, hierarchical structure usually facilitates top-down, listen to order, task oriented working culture that influents bosses behaving in a particular way. Family owned business’s bosses have the similar kind of temperament, partly they are overworking, and also they are leading in the frontline, a take charge type of Alpha leadership.

Handling with difficult bosses requires a lot of tactics. A commonly used tactic I learned from my subordinate is watching the boss’s mood. Early in the morning, when she arrives in the office, watch for non-verbal signs whether it is a rainy day. Hunker down avoiding irking her in close contact to let her to have her space if she is not as gregarious as her usual self. Acknowledging that everyone has a bad day, happen she is your boss.

A downright egregious difficult boss, you need to keep your cool when facing confrontation, always practice emphatic listening by summarizing what she has said to demonstrate that I heard you, this will lessen the heated moment, and you prepare your own case, telling her matter of factly. If both of you can’t control a slew of your wayward emotion most of the time, and you think she is culpable, ; it is better to refresh your resume. It is even destructive, if you rake up the past, just find your green pasture elsewhere.

14. How do you show your feelings when you disagree with your boss?(CEO,CIO) 3 June 2012

You need a lot of tact. I learnt this from some painful experiences.

Keep your head cool and refrain from escalating arguments by Counting to five or even ten, if the dispute is explosive. Do your homework; make sure the fact is on your side. Most bosses respect fact in a heated argument.

Don't need to be meek if you disagree. Leave your view open that is what you are worth for.

You need a second thought for your insistence, sometimes bosses have panorama view not sharing with you, it happens all the time. Your hard-headed mindset only agitates her, that is why make sure the fact is on your side (do your homework) is of paramount importance.


15. Some companies succeed where many fail. ExecuNet CMO Tony Vlahos believes the ones that tell the best stories win. Do you agree? What else sets great companies apart? Executive Suite 2 April 2012

Work done on Research into successful companies has been rife for quite a while. It evokes the times I first read “In search of excellence” by Tom Peter and Robert Waterman, I immersed myself into canonical management books many years ago. Then there came the best seller books from Jim Collin and Jerry I. Porras’s “Built to last” and Jim’s other ground breaking book “Good to great” and also numerous other books ,such as Peter Drucker on high performing companies.

Even I don’t see many companies fail or prostrated, some companies do have stupendous success than others. Great companies have a sense of purpose; this is usually what SMEs devoid of. With purpose that gives you mission, vision and direction. You congregate and maneuver the organization resources to focus and align to achieve that purpose. It motivates human resources and facilitates performance management.

Besides purpose, other attributes encompass strong leadership that has the unwavering resolve to steer the company to the right direction, sharper core competencies to achieve the quality of product and services that the customer wants; be nimble and agile for quicker sense and response to uncertainties and changes in the market.

Culture matters too. The litmus test for a professional culture is whether it emphasizes trust, empowerment, and spirit of best in class, open dialogue, reward sharing, strong core value and good business ethics. Good culture cultivates a sense of belonging; the quid pro quo is to spearhead to be an excellent company. Leader sets the tone and motivates the change for a better culture.

16, Why other companies muddle through lacking the success of great companies?

My own experience tells me that size and industry concentration matter. Majority of the successful companies are large companies. They are run by professional manager, though not infallible------professional manager is clouded by agency problem, but they are chosen from the best; whereas family-own companies depend on the quality of the owners, there are pros and cons to it, owners are entrepreneurs and their predilections are willing to take risk and smell profit like bloodhound.

In my observation, unlike the professional manager, they lack the necessary hard skills cobber together to run the companies that limit the far they can go. Even they can hire professional manager assisting them to run the company; professional manager is fettered to make critical decision, it is the boss looks over her shoulder call the shots. Manager dithers in invidious position to flesh out her own idea and is less willing to take responsibility and prefers to listen to order that hampers the value creation process. So, unable to manage professionally the jarring relationship with the manager becomes masochistic to the owners which blunt the impact of their business success. This, very often, has the impacts on SMEs and family-owned companies.

Another factor that affects successful companies to adopt best practices is industry concentration. Market concentration demands companies to marshal resources to achieve greater innovation and unyieldingly adopt a breakthrough strategy, an ineluctable choice to outflank in competition. Change becomes grindingly a necessary process to adapt to market environment. Best practice becomes a beacon enabling a company to achieve competitive advantage. The change culture is no mean feats; it gives the company a renewed life moving forward that separates successful from other not so successful ones.