Dear Score
Is the problem of sustaining enthusiasm post GE a problem with the people or a problem of leadership ? At this juncture would it be better to have 20 people each devoting 180% to the party or 200 people each devoting 50% ? Is a chinese communist style expectation even realistic for this day and age ?
Locke
[
Having led a team in my organisation before, I can safely tell that I believe in quality and not quantity. I prefer a strong team of 20 loyalists directly under me at the intiate stage of formation rather than having 200 half-hearted workers which do not add-value to my leadership.
If I wanted quantity, it will come later once I have groomed and established 20 die-hard followers. Each followers will recruit their own die-hard subordinates and that is how I increased the number down the road, MLM style.
As the company grow, every level directly under me will be raised to the next level (call it promotion or incentive rewards for their achievement). Thus it motivates those under me to help everyone move upward the laddle, collectively if they wanted equal promotion, ideally speaking.
In reality, that may not always be the case, there are bound to be someone among the 20 loyalist who performed better than the other. Such performance will depend on how he led his very own team - be it residents like him, whether he has clean records of not violating standard rules set, has he been very active promoting the company image among others.
It must be make known publicly to the 20 loyalist the importance of leadership renewal when times is riped - someone among the 20 must stand out to prove he is capable of leading, meritocracy comes into play if the one continue to display excellent performance. Such consensus is set at 2nd level of formations (after the first started by me) and path way for similar process in future.
As such, I wouldn't place too much concern about how many members were being subsequently recruited by my 20 loyalists. I don't want to appear like I was micro-managing their leadership style and trusted them to do whatever it takes to lift the organisation forward as long as everyone observe the organisation discipline or face consequences for their behaviour. When discipline is metted out, nobody should cry personal when due process is taken against him, in serous case he may face serious charges. That I called maturity and democracy process.
As in WP case, PLG is acting on his own that break the rules regardless if he meant well. Yaw was disciplinary dealt for not forthcoming to the party even if he did no wrong. As for Sajeev, I doubt LTK should micro-manage this matter. People at his level crying foul is a waste of public time. If he can't control his own grief, he cannot manage the residents grief.
Was there internal riff in WP as what Khaw wanted us to believe? I would say NO based on the above organisation formation. No one is indispensible and the organisation will not collapse just because someone leave or get punished. There must be constant renewal until everyone has reached maturity to agree with the 2nd formations (leading to eventual leadership renewal).
As for PAP, looking calm doesn't mean there is no current under the sea. In fact I sensed the riff is even deeper and broader inside PAP. There was no democracy and LHL trusted no one, unity is a show. Every of its members are bought by paying them obscenely. There was no disciplinary actons when someone made mistake, everyone was told to wear a mask to avoid backlash from the public. Meritocracy is how good you idolise "one god" and not how best your performed. Adding insult to injury, such mentality penetrated into the lower rank, the grassroots namely PA, CCC, RC. Everyone serve if there is self benefit to reap. They cover each other when rules are broken at the expense of the people. Todate, finding a leaders under such formations remained a challenge, nobody trusted each other even though they were "yes-men" all along. As a result, their policies all gone wrong and Singaporeans paid a huge price for such mediocre existence. I, wouldn't want to work in this kind of jittery environment and Singaporeans should not place too much hope on such leadership style.
As such, I am glad LTK did not chose PAP footstep. I viewed WP development in very positive light even though there are external force wanting to destroy them, mostly for self-centred reason.
