What is Your Change Quotient?

WHAT IS YOUR CHANGE QUOTIENT? Greg V. Barcelon, Jr., Ph.D.Everyone has a great capacity to change. If this were not so, people would have died from the very day they were born. Having said that, it is also true that some people seem to be able to manage change better than others. What is it that they have which others do not seem to possess? These qualities tend to also enhance one's change quotient, a concept discussed in great detail by Frank Ogden in his book entitled "The Last Book." For decades we have heard about IQ, the intelligence quotient that supposedly measures intelligence. Now there is a new kid on the block, the CQ, or change quotient, which measures the ability to adapt to change in a changing world. As we move further into the third millennium, your CQ is probably a more useful indicator of your aptitude. It is no secret that our institutions did not (and still do not) advocate adapting to change. For them to do so would be contrary to definition: an institution is "an established law, custom, practice, or system; an organisation having a social, educational, or religious purpose." To advocate change in institutions would have been, and still is, heresy ("any opinion opposed to official or established views"). Such thoughts are radical, also by definition: "favouring fundamental or extreme change." Over the centuries the conservative outlook has generally served a useful purpose. However, when radical change hits a culture, such change destroys the culture or society. As the world globalises -- itself a radical change -- old institutions have no sense of which direction to follow, what strategy to use, or even where to appeal for guidance. The guides are lost, and the guided are disillusioned, angry, bitter, and afraid. Where are the calm and confident in a storm of chaos? Certainly not among the leaders of the status quo, in the institutions or societies that continually advocate homage to the establishment. Outside their own boundaries, they are strangers in a strange land entering new and frightening forests. It is worth listening to today's new knowledge navigators, often young computer hackers who seize the new technology of the day and ride it into the unknown. Theirs is a vision of hope, accomplishment, inner satisfaction, and success, not a vision of despair, terror, indecision, and poverty. They search for the unknown because they are bored with the known, and they dream of the new adventures and riches that fall to the risk-takers early in any new age. What does this have to do with CQ, the change quotient? The new navigators, whether for genetic reasons or simply from self-motivation, have high ratings on the as-yet undrawn CQ chart. They are going where no one has gone before. Aboard caravels of silicon and gallium arsenide, today's Magellans and de Gamas are actually sailing into the unknown, although they may be the first to admit they haven't yet confirmed in which direction they are traveling. Half a millennium ago, the same could have been said of Columbus. The word "forced" deliberately used since companies themselves are getting to be victims of change. Most organisations specially the big ones find it more difficult to adapt to change until the wave of change is inevitable, as in, competitors have significantly shown and edge over them. Being big and stable, they tend to defy change because it takes longer time for them to feel its impact - until it is too late. There are seven (7) qualities/characteristics that a person who has a high change quotient possesses. They are further divided into those that can be considered as necessary conditions--the qualities/characteristics that must be there before a person can manage change, and those that can be considered as the sufficient conditions--the qualities/characteristics that must be there if the person is to manage change optimally. The necessary conditions are: Techno-literacy, Energy and Drive, Self-confidence and Non-attachment. The sufficient conditions are: Flexibility, Risk-taking and Strategic Thinking. 1. TECHNOLITERACY The term technoliteracy is a twist about the meaning of literacy, which in the traditional context meant an individual's ability to read, write and work with numbers--also known as the three Rs. Alvin Toffler was the first to suggest that the meaning of the word will change with the coming of the Information Era. He suggested that even with the capability to read, write and work with numbers, a person may not be able to claim literacy in this new age unless he possesses the skills that are relevant to operate in it. It was then Frank Ogden who specified the change required in the three Rs to be RAM, ROM, and Run. Anyone not conversant with any one of these will soon be considered illiterate. Too Much of It? A person with too much technology in his head is not what we are after. While they do well in the laboratories or garages, they usually find difficulty relating in society. In school you call them geeks, dorks or twerps. In adult life they usually become obsessed with the wonders of technology per se that they lose perspective. As individuals they usually mature physically but psychologically they really are just "kids playing with toys." Too Little of It? Illiteracy in the new world makes an individual join a group of near-extinct people called 'technopeasants.' They are those unable to work with new technology and therefore find themselves out of work. They may still be the best shoemakers in town, but the unfortunate thing is that people just would rather go to the modern shopping malls to buy a pair of cheaper and better looking shoes. After all, a pair of "Bally" shoes bought off the shelf can sometimes feel to fit better than any handmade no-brand equivalent crafted by an old shoemaker in a shack outside of town. Sentimental people who refuse to go with the changing environment would have been a good market for the old shoemaker's products. The only problem is they have also become technopeasants themselves and therefore no longer have the buying power. It is really by design that the first quality discussed in this text is related to technology. There is only one reason for that--technology is the single most important and powerful driving force of change. Thus, if anyone is to find opportunities, it will be within the periphery of technology. One area of technology which finds wide usage and exposure is that which is available in Cyberspace. The term "cyberspace", formulated by Gibson, describes an electronic network of millions of computers where interaction among people is possible. Traditionally, people had to meet physically to communicate and interact with one another. Then, text characters were developed, making possible distant communication. The telephone changed all that and transported words to practically everywhere. Today, Cyberspace makes possible an enormous amount of transactions beyond what a few years ago were seen only in science fiction movies or books. The emerging Social Media, enabled by Cloud Computing is changing the way people live, relate with others, socialise, work, etc. It is so pervasive that businesses cannot but recognise its importance if they are to survive. 2. PERSONAL DRIVE AND ENERGY Personal drive and energy embody the capacity of an individual to fuel activity. It is characterised by a self-propelled and forceful action finding its expression in a relatively faster pace of movement, inexhaustible capacity to carry on productive endeavours and a personal way of replenishing whatever is lost within a short period of time. Too Much of It? When there is too much uncontrolled Personal Drive and Energy, then it can lead to hyperactivity, unnecessary movements and meaningless undertakings. This is specially true of young, growing kids. As they develop their capacity for mobility, they can carry the energy they have toward so many directions that sometimes drive parents crazy. Too Little of It? A person with too little Personal Drive & Energy is likely to be laid back, lethargic, and unable to respond appropriately to his environment. There is a difference between Personal energy and borrowed energy. The former is a power that comes from within while the latter is something that is forced from outside. It is quite paradoxical, however, that as children we all start out with energy coming from the awakening of our human capabilities. Yet, somewhere along the line many people can be so restricted in the expression of such internal energy that they eventually become enslaved to external push. Such phenomenon can carry on even in young adulthood. Some people just turn over control of their faculties to parents so that they don't have to do anything more other than what their parents allow them to do. Then, when they start attending school, the system (i.e., school policies, curriculum, teachers, teaching styles and strategies) get them to follow a certain pre-determined way of behaving and acting. By the time they get to become working adults, people can be well programmed as to only act according to what and how the external force tells them to. Change requires energy. In fact, most meaningful change processes will demand more than the usual energy consumption. Take a change experience in your life. It can be a change of residence or job. The effort required to complete and pull through the change would have made you work harder and feel exhausted than your normal day. Another analogy is the situation developing countries and economies normally get into. As they develop, they eventually exhibit an extraordinary increase in their oil consumption. In fact, one of the biggest problems of the newly-industrialised countries in Asia today is the ever increasing demand for power generation. Somehow, traditional ways of projecting power requirements in relation to growth simply cannot capture the dynamics involved in the increasing demand for power that economic development brings. In individuals, the supply and demand of energy is a function of many inter-playing factors. For one, the rate of metabolism has something to do with energy. Some people require less amount of energy to fulfill certain basic human activities. Others need more. The kind of food people eat has a lot to do with how their bodies are fuelled. Certain food groups are known to just create fat and excess body weight which retard movement rather than fuel energy. It is also a known fact that vegetarians, for instance, tend to manage their energy supply and demand balance better than those who are more carnivorous. The intra-psychic drives and motives of individuals can spell a lot of differences in why one person is more active for a longer period of time than another. Some inspirational speakers call it the "power of the mind", while others refer to it as "positive thinking". Sigmund Freud, one of the founding fathers of Psychology has his theory of the interaction between the more instinctual part of us called the Id, with the more moralistic part, known as the Superego, and the resulting decisions and choices made by an operational personality executive termed as the Ego. Change is stressful. In Psychology, there is the classic research by Homes and Rhae, making a positive relationship between the amount of change an individual undertakes within a period of two years and that person's propensity for physical illness. Such relationship can, of course, be abated (mitigated) by stress management technologies such as relaxation, recreation, etc. While the relationship may not necessarily be causal, younger people tend to entertain change more than those who are older. Could this possibly be because as people grow older their energy management techniques tend to be less efficient? Yet, it is interesting to see that many adults seem to derive energy from keeping themselves busy with a lot of activities. At times, energy itself can drive change. Conversely, lack of it retards change. 3. SELF-CONFIDENCE It is a basic trust in oneself and one's abilities - a heightened state of efficacy and belief that one is capable of managing other people, things and situations. An integral part of self-confidence is doing whatever has to be done without regard to what other people say or think. Too Much of It? A surplus of self-confidence leads to selfrighteousness and inflation of the ego. It manifests itself in illusions of greatness and false sense of reality. Arrogance and pompousness are typical behaviours indicative of excessive degree of self-confidence. Too Little of It? A deficit of self-confidence leads to inferiority and inability to make a stand. A person lacking in self-confidence may think he is unworthy even if, in fact, he is more capable than others. Timidity and acquiescence are some behaviours found common in those with low self-confidence. Change means uncertainty. It is unsettling and can often be confusing. Change means exposing one to the world of the unknown. In the process of undergoing change, in fact, some pain and discomfort are likely to be present. A person who is not self-assured will not likely be able to handle change in the direction that he wants it to go. Instead, if change were at all to take place, it could be manipulated or dictated by forces outside of his own control. The outcome may not be something that the person really want. Look back to the last major change process you went through - when you probably got married, changed career directions, moved to a new place of residence, learned new skills, or looked forward to the arrival of a new baby, etc. Situations as these require a lot of attention, work and decision-making. Basically, it needs presence of mind and trust in oneself. Without self-confidence, you could not have made your decisions well enough to enable you to still move on and do other things in your life. Successful change attempts and self-confidence feed on each other. People with selfconfidence somehow believe things will always work out well for them. Naturally, when things turn out as they expect, their self-confidence is further reinforced. At this point, higher level of self-confidence tend to make them open to new changes. Motivated and driven to achieve more, self-confident people tend to be the first ones to take a crack on change and therefore benefit most out of their attempts. In the process, they experience success which further reinforces greater level of self-confidence. The negative cycle goes the other way around. People who have low self-confidence somehow believe that things do not work out well for them, without necessarily going through the experience as yet. A past failure could trigger off the fear to try again. Sometimes, it could even just be an experience told by someone, which somehow influences the person's lack of trust in self. And just like a self-fulfilling prophecy, focus on failure indeed results to what is expected , thus, it reinforces the initial feeling of being a "born loser". Feeling very inadequate, the tendency of these people is not to seek out experiences that will entail asserting themselves and what they stand for. They are always last to ride a trend. They most often end up gaining very little from change. The sense of being a failure reinforces withdrawal from actively participating in the process of change. Loss of self-confidence keeps them tagging behind others, waiting for the tide to set in and drift them along. Self-confidence is in the mind. It is not something that one can buy or pick up and wear. Of course, some people can argue that self-confidence can take a big boost when one drives a brand new Mercedes Benz, as against driving a small Subaru. This kind of selfconfidence boost is nothing but a "boost" - short term and temporary. Deprived of the accessories one can attach to one's image, the feeling of success may not have enough handle for the person to cling on when problems and tough situations arise. The rich do not have monopoly in feeling confident about themselves. (In fact, many rich people tend to be even more confused and lacking in self confidence as the milkman that makes morning delivery at their doorstep each day.) In much the same way, physical attributes do not always determine success of a person in life, (barring extremes in attributes such as geniuses, morons or handicapped people who tend to compensate in more unique ways). Self-confidence can be developed and enhanced. One of the tenets of Neurolinguistic Programming believes that anything any human being can achieve you can also achieve. 4. NON-ATTACHMENT Non-attachment implies the capacity to let go and set free from possessive feelings over people, things events, etc. It is the state of being able to remove oneself from the picture similar to how things will be when one is already dead or gone. It is the ability to say "good bye" to something or someone familiar. Too Much of It? A surplus of non-attachment can make a person come across as cold, or indifferent. He can operate in an extremely clinical or robotic manner such that no feelings are attached with thoughts and behaviour altogether. Cinematographic examples of being totally non-attached would be the legendary character of Vulcan, Dr. Spoch, or the humanoid, Mr. Data of the Star Trek TV series. In a way, too much non-attachment makes one less humane. Too Little of It? A deficit of non-attachment can make a person an obsessive collector of material possessions, sentimental memories, and possessive relationships. They draw security from holding on and making everything an object of feeling. Thus, they experience great pains in letting go of anything. Letting go is a basic prerequisite to enjoying life. Air moves freely through the atmosphere. Water flows freely down a mountain stream. Waves roll freely onto ocean beaches. The earth moves freely on its axis. The nature of life is freedom of movement. Whenever we let go of these natural movements, everybody benefits from it. Each time we interfere with the flow of energy, we go against nature. In the process, we feel discomfort and pain. We were born and given the chance to flow with the movement. At a certain point, our time in this world will be over. Letting go makes life take its most natural course beautifully. Let us look at a child and his feeding bottle. Have you noticed how attached a child can be to his feeding bottle, such that they have invented the pacifier (a rubber nipple attached to a ring sans the milk bottle)? Whenever the child cries, the tendency of most mothers is to give them the bottle. It satisfies the child's oral need and gives him a sense of security to hold on to the nipple. It takes some kids longer time to let go of the feeding bottle and/or the pacifier, because they can be so attached to it as it represents a sense of security. To take it away from him can mean a racket of crying and tantrums. It takes a certain stage in the natural process of growth until the child can be ready to let go of his bottle and move on to the next phase of his development. From the age of a toddler to pre-teens, the process of letting go could be easier for some and more difficult for others. The transition from childhood fantasies to the reality of teenage life can be crucial for some so that they would rather spend longer period playing with toys and be like Peter Pan in Neverland. However, when the time comes and they are ready to move on, letting go of their childhood would be the most natural movement. The less we deceive ourselves, the easier it is to be non- attached. The biggest deception we tend to engage in is to allow ourselves to believe that an accumulation of material wealth is equal to security. Note that I used the term " allow ourselves". This is so, primarily, because practically all advertising push consumers to crave for material possessions. Houses are objects of ownership and storage of worth (including self-worth). Therefore the bigger the house, -- the better the person ; the more houses one owns the more secure the person is. It takes a lot of awareness and independent thinking to re-surface the fact that any ownership we can have is "not real, but imaginary." Ownership contradicts the concept of freedom of movement. The only way to truly enjoy anything is to let it be free to move. If you allow a thing to be free, and it chooses to stay around, you know that it is perfect for you to have it and enjoy. If the things leaves, you know that there is something else that is perfect for you to have and enjoy. A sense of worth and security is not something that is outside of ourselves. Anyone who tries to feel secure by amassing material possessions is actually working against himself, reinforcing deception and undermining the truth. The truth is that there is always enough to support everyone. A protest song in the 1970s goes "There 's enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed." The bigger problem is when you yourself have to be the one to go. Have you noticed how little changes happen practically everyday and how well we are able to cope with them? If you look at your workplace, the people there five years ago are no longer the same people who are there today. A lot of your friends have gone - one at a time. Somehow, when one of your friends go, it is easy for us to detach and let go. When one of our children start go for boarding school, we usually do not find it disastrous since the other children are still around, or even if they all go, the spouse is still here. In the end, when the time comes that the spouse also goes, most people will be able to manage since friends are still around. You see, when one friends leaves for another job, company, or country, you lose a friend - it is not so difficult to let go. But when you are the one planning to leave and transfer jobs, company, or country, you "lose" all your friends together with the familiar and comfortable environment you have been so used to. Yet, it is the latter - the massive sort of letting go ,that the changing world requires us to do! 5. FLEXIBILITY Like a bamboo, a flexible person is resilient and dances with the wind, yet maintains its roots on the ground, confident that it can withstand the storm ever so gracefully. The flexible individual sways, but does not break -- is well-grounded, yet accommodating. Deep within a flexible person are core values that will never change - outside of that core, every other condition is liveable. Too Much of It? A surplus of flexibility can lead a person to simply drift as a free spirit. It may mean that he is truly alive since he is able to accept anything and everything. On the other hand, he can also be considered dead as he has already lost the very essence of what makes him an individual different from the rest. Too Little of It? A deficit in flexibility is equally terminal. It usually manifests itself in rigidity and being narrow minded. To survive, a person without flexibility must always seek the limited environment under which he is able to survive and do well. Any sudden change makes him react vigorously, desperately holding back everything so the old order of things will be preserved. Humans are potentially the most flexible creatures on the face of the earth. Proof to that will be the extremely divergent range of living conditions that the members of the human race live in all around the world. Whether it be in the freezing environment of the Antarctic or the scorching heat of the Sahara, people can survive. They survive and go on. People can be put to jail for decades, altering completely not only their environment, but also their own concept of being human and yet they survive, sometimes coming out of the experience with more wisdom than when they started. Going one step backward, the human body is truly a resilient and flexible mechanism. One cannot help but sometimes wonder how the human body can take the "beating", starting with the abuse of some chemical substance, (drugs, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc.). The enormous amount of junk food it has to process, the extended hours it has to operate all the way, to the direct physical abuse it sometimes has to sustain, are just examples to show the body's resiliency. The human body is so flexible that it is difficult to kill. In fact, it is amazing how the coping mechanism of the body always works to keep it going even under the most severe punishment. Change requires flexibility. For a person to venture into something new, uncertain and unknown, (as happens in the process of change) he must be flexible enough to cope with whatever will come. To be otherwise, means instant pain, failure, if not psychological demise. The reverse is also quiet true - flexible people tend to be more open and accommodating to change. In a way, flexibility has an enabling effect. Through the variety of experiences it brings, a person is able to identify new or emerging horizons and pursue them. The thinking pattern of such people tend to be more divergent. Compare that to the situation of an individual who is fixed and refuses to accommodate any new way of living or doing things. To him, the primary mission is to protect, conserve, and maintain the status quo at all cost. In the process, budding opportunities are shut down shortly after they surface. The thinking pattern in their case is more convergent. After saying that humans are potentially the most flexible creatures on earth, why do some still tend to be rigid and less willing to exercise such potential? With some, it is not knowing how to develop such potential. For those who insist on maintaining status quo all the way, or for those who are simply lost and do not know how to develop their potentials, I hope that this book could guide and enlighten them in realizing what they have been missing in life. The degree of flexibility required is proportionate to the pace of change one is exposed to in one's life circumstances. We can liken the process to driving a car. At 10 kmph in a country road where two or three cars will pass by in a day, one can be pretty slow in adjusting to driving on a busy street. Theoretically, there is enough space and time to ensure safe driving to a desired destination. But, if one were to move in the super highways of the metropolis, where people are likely to "run over" you if you go less than 100 kmph, utmost flexibility in driving style is necessary. Take it one stage further, and imagine a race driver competing for world championship, all tensed up, unable to adapt smoothly to the speed and timing required to make the turns and curves. If he insists on driving with just one style because it worked for him before, he will not be able to manipulate the car to its maximum performance under different conditions. Flexibility requires him to keep attune with the current demands presented by every situation before him. Can you expect to participate and contribute significantly to life in the fast paced work environment in the capital city and at the same time not be flexible? The answer is a flat "No". Having said that, many people still stay in the city and insist on the being less flexible. In the end they become obstacles rather than contributors. Flexibility fuels productive perseverance. Without flexibility, managing the obstacles that confront a person in working towards his goals or in going through a change process could be glaringly difficult. They can appear daunting, overwhelming and insurmountable because everything would seem to look like a dead end. With flexibility, obstacles turn into challenges - triggers forth the creativity juice to to flow and present alternatives that helps rather than hinders. The person with the most behaviour flexibility will always be in control. This conclusion was one of the greatest concepts crystallised by the techniques of Neurolinguistic Programming. It all boils down to: a) setting the outcomes you want achieved; b) doing what it takes to get the outcome, and c) adjusting "b" as often as necessary in order to achieve the outcome. 6. RISK TAKING This implies the ability to take action given that there is a chance of failure. Inherent in risk taking is a natural feel for what is sound and what is not; what is wise and what's not. It is the ability to put something at stake in order to achieve a goal. Invariably, successful risk taking rewards a person with a windfall, a leap, or a significant return (all of which would have not been possible within the constraints had the risk not been taken). Too Much of It? A surplus of risk taking can be misinterpreted as recklessness or adventurism. And while no one can really say how much risk is appropriate for any given situation, risks taken at progressively higher rate and in greater frequency tend to lead to disaster. Too Little of It? A deficit in risk taking is immobilising. There is risk in practically anything. There is more risk in anything worth doing. Any one who do not like taking risks is likely to waste time analysing things over and over again believing that one can replace a situation that calls for risk with a wish for greater certainty. Zelinski (1994) in his book on creativity and change, cannot be more appropriate when he said the that the only thing certain is uncertainty. Not to take a risk does not assure anybody of security, safety, and of course growth cannot take place in stagnation. At the core of every change process is risk. With change comes a transition from one phase to another. Alongside with the transition has to be the end of a cycle, a routine, a habit, or something that the person has been used to. In a way, change marks the end of the old pattern, thus there lies the risk that something good could be lost forever. As it has been said, the seed has to die first so that it could multiply and produce better plants. That is a risk in itself. The new beginning entails risk just as well. The uncertainty that it may not come out as good or better than the previous attempt could hold back low risk takers. On the other hand, without the ability to manage risk, there can be no meaningful change. Those who know how to entertain risk can proceed and reap of all the benefit the change promises. Most of the time, those who do not learn how to work with risk have to be content with being the victim of those who can take advantage of their lack of their ability to take risk. The greatest enemy of risk taking is worry. We all want a certain amount of change. We look for novelty and variety around us. However, most of the time, this desire for change is overpowered by worries – “What if the guy I am currently going out with does not turn out to be a good husband after all?" "What if I request for a transfer and I get rejected?" What if...What if... There is a little card I saw once which said " Worry is the chewing gum of the mind; it keeps you occupied, but it does not give you anything." Worry can also be likened to a rocking chair - it keep you moving but bring you nowhere. Many do not realise that the greatest risk is actually doing nothing. There is risk in everything we do. Life by definition is risky. Being born in itself is a risk. Even getting up the morning is a risk. Total security is nothing but a myth. The only place where there is no longer any risk in the graveyard. The more we become better at avoiding or running away from risks, the closer we get to death. Compare basic lifestyles of people .There are people who never get out of the house after the sun gets down. Yet, on the other hand, there are those who can stay up all night, either doing a job, enjoying themselves, or socialising. Worse than that are people whose activities are limited to going back and forth to their work place and home. Notice how our world, our life - narrows as we stay away from risky situations. Yes, risk can be calculated and managed. The phenomenon called "risk" is present when the impact of the undesirable or negative consequence of an action is greater than the impact of the desired or positive consequence of the same action. To illustrate the point : there is risk in crossing a busy street to go to a corner store to buy one's favourite food or drink. The positive outcome of the act of crossing the street is getting the food and satisfying one's hunger or thirst. The negative outcome is: as one crosses the street , one can be run over by a speeding vehicle resulting to death. In this case, the impact of dying is very much greater than the impact of getting one's food or drink. Another example : Let us look into the risk that financial institutions undertake when they grant you a loan which you amortise for a period of, let's say, three (3) years. For the whole period of three (3) years, the bank is undertaking a risk. The positive consequence for them is the periodic payment you make of a few hundred dollars as amortisation for the loan. The negative consequence for them materialises when you do not pay and instead run away with whatever they have loaned you. To the bank, the impact of the positive which is a few hundred dollars is very much less than the impact of the thousands that you can always run away with. Managing the risk means changing the equations. This translates to minimising the impact of the negative, maximising the impact of the positive, or both. There are three (3) elements that are considered most important in risk management. They are : 1. Exposure. In finance, this refers to the absolute amount which is likely to be affected if the undesirable consequence of an action occurs. From a wider perspective, it can also include all other resources and assets that an individual or organisation has. Managing risk means protecting, if not reducing this exposure. This is one main reason why we buy insurance. For example, the insurable amount is usually based on some calculations of our earning capacity. Any time we die, our earning capacity goes. But, by buying an insurance, such capacity is covered. In fact, the scheme is so well drawn out that now some people are really worth more (financially) dead than alive! Risks can also be shared. From 1974 to 1984 I worked for a multinational company. Life was comfortable then, since on top of highly competitive salaries, I was assured of car loan facilities, housing loan facilities, generous benefits and amenities, extended medical benefits that went beyond retirement, - even free coffin from the company when we die. So, it was not an easy decision to make to change and leave a situation as ideal as that. But I did -- though not solely at my own risk. Somehow, I managed to strike a deal with my employer that I will be taken out of their number, but will be allowed to do half of my old job for half of my time for half of my last compensation level. Risk taking is what manufacturers give customers whenever they give them "satisfaction guaranteed" and/or warranty for a period of time. 2. Vulnerability. This element refers to the extent to which the exposure is likely to be affected by undesirable consequences. The more vulnerable, the higher the risk. Take for instance, the issue of keeping spare funds. They can be kept in their most liquid form, i.e. currency and in the most available place, e.g. under the pillow, etc. Unless one does not do anything twenty four hours a day except to watch over that money, the chances of it getting lost will be rather high. Such vulnerability can be managed by either changing the form in which it is stored, e.g., buy a house and a lot with the money, or in changing the place where it is stored, or some combination of both. In the case of employees, the vulnerability of those leaving the company for some other work activities may be higher for those in depressed areas as against those whose area is experiencing economic boom. 3. Control. The element of control refers to the extent which an individual can influence the factors that sustain the risk. Again, the greater the control, the lower the risk level. This element is, perhaps, the most misunderstood in the analysis of the risk, e.g. leaving a comfortable job to search for something more meaningful to do. In my personal experience, some people questioned the wisdom of leaving my old company for something that was largely unknown. But if you really think about it, in the last analysis : who has the greater control - a person like me who goes out and make a personal commitment to get a better life for myself and my family, or the guy who stays on hoping that the company will take care of them until they retire? The best way to prepare for risk : Work hard and pray hard. 7. STRATEGIC THINKING This pertains to the ability to think in terms of an overall approach designed to effectively achieve a certain objective. It is composed of two parts : a) an analysis of who has comparative initial advantage and, b) a plan of how to offset such advantage. Too Much of It? A surplus of strategic thinking makes a person treat everything in life as a "win-lose or draw" game. He then second guesses everything another person says. He sees a plot in every shadow. And he can be over suspicious about people's "hidden agenda", "hidden message", "selfish interest", etc. There is no open, honest and truly personal relationship possible with someone who is an accomplished strategic thinker. Too Little of It? A deficit in this ability easily translates a person to be a willing victim. Naiveté' is a good term for it . He does not know how to distinguish between an honest compliment and sheer crap. The underlying force that motivates most changes in today's world is strategic thinking. People and organisation undertake changes so they will do better than others (competitors). Notice how companies who are able to change according to market developments can be so successful? Tom Peters, in every one of his books talk only about being fast in order to survive in the market. And in a system of free enterprise, such desire to do better is translated into money -- return on investment - profits, etc. Even the advancement in technology becomes widely available for as long as there is money to be made from it. Of course, every company talks about serving the customer better, just-in-time delivery and other buzz words used in corporate brand -norms. At the end of the day, however, the desire boils down to becoming the biggest, the most powerful, the most successful, and all the benefits that successful strategic thinking brings. The people who will benefit most out of the changes that are coming are those who are driven by competition - those who will think strategically. People who are more lethargic and easily satisfied will stay where they are and allow themselves to be willing victims of change. It takes strategic thinking to realise that when everything is moving forward, not to move means moving backward! Anyone who understands such strategic thinking process will know change is inevitable. Strategic thinking equalizes an inherently unequal playing field. The beauty and the challenge of this lies in people being different and not equal to one another. While we can talk about equality with respect to basic human rights, the circumstances of people are as varied as there are individuals. There are people who are born rich, and people who are born poor. There are those born, big, others are born small. There are those born tall where others are short. There are those who are born good-looking and those whose looks are homely. No matter how you look at things, be it in terms of organization or individuals, the initial advantage goes to the one who is taller, bigger, richer, more attractive, etc. Fortunately, life's drama does not end there. With strategic thinking the poor can one day become rich; the short can overcome the tall; the small can outdo the big, and a homely person can, in fact, marry a very attractive spouse. With such dynamics, life indeed, is most interesting. The whole concept of how martial arts teaches people to be able to tackle anybody regardless of size is based on strategic thinking. Take for instance a situation where one who weighs 120 lbs. meets up with an opponent who is 240 lbs. By sheer body mass, the 120-pounder is sure dead meat! But martial arts, like judo, for instance, will tell you not to fight with the person head on, or muscle for muscle. Instead, it teaches you to wait and put the opponent in a position where he cannot use his full force against you. So, you wait for him to make the first move. When he does, that is the time to make a move. Notice that a person in the act of attacking you is relatively less balanced when he is just in a stand still position. In fact, at a certain point, the moving stance will reduce his force and would become only equal if not less than your full force. Counter attacking at that point in time gives you the temporary advantage and therefore every chance to outdo him. The more strategic it is, the more meaningful change becomes. I have already said that change is unlikely to be initiated by people who do not think strategically. For indeed, other than for the purpose of having variety from time to time, there is not point of changing for the sake of change. Yet for the strategic thinker, change comes naturally. It comes as a natural prerequisite of achieving a desired goal. As often as the goal requires the individual to change, he changes without any complaints because he knows it is all a part of the plan he has to carry out in order to succeed. Let's take as an example those people we hear about who are driven by an unquenchable thirst for money and possessions. They will do anything just to be able to get what they want. The will change their eating habits, their sleeping routine, their resting time - they will give up anything in pursuit of their obsession. They may even go to the extent of changing their relationships, their beliefs, their principles, and standards, to get what they want. In many cases, they could lose everything and change back from riches to rags before they are able to find the "right" combination towards their millions. The most important aspect of strategic thinking and change is one's ultimate goal (vision). Much like my previous example, strategic thinking is the same approach used by successful con men and criminals. The difference lies in the goal or vision they pursue. Lack of strategic thinking can also be at times attributed to lack, or shallowness of a person's goal (vision). One of the most prevalent problem of today's consumerised individual is the inability to set one's own goals. Most often, they run on auto pilot with the controls being with advertisers and commercial organisations. As such, they set goals that those profiteers set them, e.g. a fast and luxurious sports car; a nice and cozy house; material possessions for the children, etc. These material goals are rather easy to achieve. However, after the fourth car in the family of two (2) adults, there isn't any more sense in pursuing more money to buy more cars. So, very often, by age 40, when children are already in school and the house is already fully paid, and there are enough cars in the garage, people cannot see any more meaningful goals to aim for. To think strategically, there must be a greater goal. To be willing to change in support of the strategy, the goal must be meaningful. Second Edition – July 29, 2010