Today on my jog along the Marina Promenade, I reminded myself that my parents gave me a good body and i have taken good care of it. that’s why I’m able to enjoy life to the fullest.
Then it occurred to me that those “effective” people (in the OC sense) usually don’t or can’t make the same claim. They are often overworked, overweight, overeating, lacking exercise. It’s rare to see one of them fit and slim (TYY might be).
Remember OC-effective is defined in the corporate context. Mostly corporate managers.
— OC-effective people are no more likely to be healthier than average. Their life expectancy is not longer. I actually believe health is wealth.
— OC-effective ≠ (Fuller) wealth or measured in Brbr. Many people are more wealthy but not MNC managers.
— OC-effective ≠ “effective with the team”, as in the SG sense. Sometimes it is largely inter-personal (with the boss) effectiveness.
— OC-effective is mostly theoretical and assessment can be very biased . Promotion is decided by upper management, so what team members feel doesn’t count. 360-review is marketing.
— OC-effective ≠ true leadership. We all know some lousy managers getting promoted (RTS, deMunk). However, I think many good leaders have OC-effectiveness. Listening is essential.
— OC-effective ≠ satisfaction with life. Grandpa often says these individuals 活得好累. They often have more stress due to heavy responsibilities.
— OC-effective is effective in that one organization and may not be in another organization. Consider Honglin. In contrast, hands-on developers like me possess more portable skills mostly in the form of IV.
— OC-effective ≠ adding social value. The corporation may not create lasting social value. OC-effectiveness means effective at helping the company reach its goals, regardless of value. In SG context, social value is rather important.