Stories about being Flexible (2)

I hope you like the article “Stories about Flexibility” which was posted a few days ago. As promised, here is the second installment.

Story No. 3 - The Lecturer and his “ice breaking” game

Last week, I attended the “Legal Practice Management” course at the College of Law in Sydney CBD. Lawyers in the State of New South Wales who intend to venture on their own and start their own legal practice must attend and complete the course. There was a good mix of both young and senior lawyers. I found the course to be very useful and informative. The College of Law did a fantastic job in conducting the course- they provided good materials (both in hard copies as well as in a USB stick) to read and a nice solid folder to put your materials in. I am not saying this merely because College of Law has its advertisement  in my blog, I say it because I do mean it sincerely!

On the first day, we had 3 speakers talking about interesting stuff and then we adjourned for an in-house lunch. When we continued with the afternoon session, we had this lecturer who came in and told us that he wanted us to play an “ice-breaking game”. The participants looked at each other in amusement - thinking whether the “ice-breaking game” was just a time filler or did the lecturer really wanted to get to know the participants? Keeping in mind that each lecturer only had 90 minutes to deliver his/her session and furthermore, an “ice-breaking game” so late in the course didn’t make much sense. Furthermore, by that time most of the participants already knew each other. This was all rather puzzling to me until I discovered the real reason the following morning. According to one of the participants, this particular lecturer normally conducts the first session of the course, therefore, it is understandable to have an “ice breaking game” at that time since everyone is new to the course and it would be a good time to know each other. However due to a scheduling issue, the Coordinator of the course had to switch the lecturer’s session with another lecturer’s session, thus pushing back the particular lecturer’s session to a later time. From what I have experienced is that this particular lecturer must have a pretty standard and rigid pattern when he conducts his session. It appears to me that it doesn’t matter to him what time of the day his session is conducted, irregardless he would just follow his usual pattern. A person who is flexible and “open” would probably leave out the “ice breaking game” and go straight to conducting the session making it relevant and useful. A flexible person would also take into account the time of the day and the class environment at the given time so that the session can be tailored to suit the mood and the need of the class.

It is my view that dealing with a person who has a rigid or set pattern is easier compared to an unpredictable person. The reason is because it is easier to predict the person’s next action and you will have sufficient time to plan your strategy to engage that person.

Story No. 4 - Madam X and CPF

My mother’s good friend whom I shall call here as Madam X lost her husband to old age some years ago in Malaysia. She managed to obtain the probate and the assets were distributed accordingly. However, a few years later, she received a letter from Singapore’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board notifying her late husband that he still had some monies with CPF. Madam X came to see me with the letter from CPF and asked for my  assistance. I informed Madam X that legally, the Malaysian Probate would need to be resealed in order to claim the monies from CPF. Keeping in mind that Madam X is an elderly lady and works in the school canteen, traveling would be quite a hurdle for her. Therefore,  I informed her that I will contact my friend who is a Singapore lawyer and seek his opinion.

I explained to the Singapore lawyer of Madam X’s predicament and the lawyer said he would do some research and come back to me. A few days later, the Singapore lawyer informed me that it would be better for Madam X to come to Singapore and personally see the officer at the CPF Board in order to resolve this issue. The Singapore lawyer volunteered to accompany Madam X to the CPF office and his services would be pro bono. I appreciated the Singapore lawyer’s kind gesture and informed Madam X the good news.

A day coinciding with the school holidays in Malaysia was set for Madam X’s visit to Singapore. I guess I was more anxious than Madam X with regard to this matter. I was on the phone with the Singapore lawyer frequently to follow up on this matter. On the appointed day, the Singapore lawyer and Madam X went and see the officer at CPF. It took quite some time before Madam X called me to inform that everything had been settled. Didn’t quite understood what she meant, I immediately called the Singapore lawyer and this was what he explained. The officer at CPF was very helpful. The CPF officer told Madam X that normally they would require a probate in order to release the monies. However, as an officer, he has some discretion and in order for him to exercise that discretion, there must be three things that need to be satisfied. One, the proof of identity of Mr. X. Two, Madam X was legally married to Mr. X at the time of his death and three, the death certificate of Mr. X must be produced. Fortunately, I have asked Madam X to bring all of the original documents with her to Singapore, just in case if the documents are required to be sighted. After the CPF officer examined all the documents, he informed Madam X that he is satisfied that Madam X had met all the 3 conditions and therefore, would be exercising his discretion to release the monies to Madam X.

I was very impressed with the way the CPF officer handled the affairs. He wasn’t rigid and he knows when to be flexible when it comes to exceptional circumstances. Of course, in order to be given that kind of discretion, a lot of confidence and responsibilities have been  placed on the officer by his employer. To quote the famous line the Spiderman movie, “With power, comes with great responsibility”. I once asked a retired senior government officer, “why can’t all governments give their officers flexibility and discretion when making decisions?” “Wouldn’t this cut all the red tape and get things done quickly?” The retired senior government officer replied, “Giving government officers flexibility and discretion can  easily open up to abuse of power or even worse, it may lead to corruption. Therefore, we always have in place a standard operating procedure for the officers to follow so that their decisions will be uniformed”. In other words, rigid but seen to be fair. There are always two sides to a coin. Personally to me, as long as the person is taught that it is okay to be fair and flexible, I think flexibility should be the flavour of the day. What do you think?

Stories about being Flexible (1)

Some of us grow up in a rigid environment that involved a regimental or a disciplined lifestyle. For example, everything must be done in a certain regular pattern. For instance, my father is a stickler when it comes to restaurants. He prefers to eat in the restaurants that he is familiar with rather than exploring new restaurants. His reasoning is, “Why go and look for trouble when you know this restaurant serves good food?”. It makes sense but at the same time, it also restricts future options. Another example is my son who used to follow to a strict pattern when it came to timing. When he was a young kid, the nanny used to feed him lunch at 12.00pm, bathed him at 4.00pm and dinner at 5.30pm. For a long time, he sticked to this “schedule”. I remember when he was 6 years old, we were out somewhere quite far from home, suddenly our young son asked us whether we could be back at home by 4.00pm? We were surprised and asked him, ‘“Why?”. Our young son replied that he needed to be home by 4.00pm to shower. My wife and I burst out laughing but we when we saw his face, we knew he was dead serious and nothing was going to change his decision! So, we thought we needed to change his mindset and teach him that it was perfectly fine to be flexible in life as long as your objective remains the same. I was reminded of the analogy of an airplane and its destination. The analogy is that “The destination remains the same but the flight path may change”. Why the change? Well, it could be due to bad weather or strong turbulence that requires the plane to divert from its usual route. However, the destination will always remain the same. Therefore, being flexible is a good thing to have in our life. I have a few stories about flexibility. Here are the first two stories, the rest will be in the next posting.

Story No. 1 - The Stewardess with the food cart

Someone told me a story about a particular airline that prides itself with its inflight service. When it comes to serving meals, the Stewardesses would push the food cart and ask the passengers, “Would you like chicken or fish?”. In other words, the passengers have an option of having either the chicken or the fish meal. For some reason, on that particular day, the fish meal was very popular and they ran out rather quickly. My friend didn’t know about it. So when it came to my friend’s turn to be served, being ignorant, he requested for the “fish”. The stewardess very politely replied, “I am sorry, Sir, we ran out of fish, we only have chicken”. My friend responded, “No problem, I will have the chicken then”. After serving the “chicken meal” to my friend, the stewardess pushed the food cart and went on with her usual mantra, “chicken or fish!”. My friend just shook his head as he couldn’t understand how could the stewardess rambled the same line when she knew very well that they already ran out of the “fish meal”. My friend informed me that perhaps the cabin crew have already been instilled this sort of training and delivery lines into their heads so deeply that flexibility no longer applies when it comes to serving the passengers. Another school of thought could be that it was a way of pleasing the passengers by giving the perception that options have been given to them when in actual fact, there wasn’t any. To me, the second option doesn’t seem plausible as it could be deemed to be deceitful and I am sure airlines would not do that.

Story No. 2 - “The Standard Operating Procedure”

About 15 years ago, a friend of mine came and see me because he wanted to take a housing loan from the bank and needed someone to assist him with the loan documentation. As some us know would know in Malaysia (not sure if this is still the case or not), in order to prepare loan documentation, the law firm must be in the bank’s panel of solicitors. I informed my friend that I am not in any of the bank’s panel. My friend said that he had already checked with the bank officer and he was informed that all he needed to do was to give a letter appointing my firm as his solicitors and my firm can prepare the loan documentation for him. He also informed me that the bank had their own loan documents, so all I needed to do was to purchase them from the bank’s head office. The next day, I sent one of our staff to the head office to purchase the loan documents. After a couple of hours, the staff returned from the bank empty handed. He said the bank needed a letter from the law firm authorising him to purchase the loan documents on its behalf. So, I quickly prepared the letter and gave it to him. My staff rushed to the bank and came back again empty handed saying that  the bank couldn’t find the letter from my friend appointing us as their solicitors in their file. Therefore, they requested for another letter. Getting frustrated, I called up my friend and related to him what happened. My friend asked me not to worry, he would go to the bank’s head office himself and get those loan documents. After that, he would bring them straight to my office. A few hours later, I received a phone call from my friend sounded very agitated. This time, it was me who asked him to cool down and tell me what happened. This was what he said, “The bank would not allow me to purchase the loan documents even though I am the borrower and the client”. He said to add insult to his injury, the bank required the following documents before they can sell the loan documents to him:-

1. The original letter from him appointing us as his solicitors; and

2  A letter from my law firm authorising HIM to purchase the loan documents on our behalf.

My friend told the clerk that since he is the client, why does he need a letter from his own lawyers authorising him to purchase the loan documents? Thinking that the clerk may not quite understand him, my friend said he tried to put it in layman’s words to the clerk, “I am the “boss”, why do I need a letter from my own lawyer authorising me (the “boss”) to buy the documents?”. The clerk had no words to say. The clerk took out a checklist and showed to my friend that he was merely following the “standard operating procedure”. The list has got a list of things that require a tick. If one of the box is not ticked or marked, the clerk will be in trouble. My friend emphatised with the clerk but he just shook his head in disbelief on how rigid the bank could be. Some flexibility and common sense would work well here.

I remember another incident where I went to collect the original title deed from the land office. I was told by my colleague to bring both the firm’s rubber stamp as well as my lawyer’s rubber stamp in case the land office needed verification. When it came to my turn to collect the original title deed at the land office, the person attended to me asked “Where is the law firm’s letter authorising you to collect the original title deed?” I informed the person that I am the Principal of the law firm and I have the law firm’s rubber stamp, my lawyer’s rubber stamp, my business card and a Photo ID to proof who I am. In Malaysia, all law firm’s letterhead must have the name of the lawyers printed clearly. Not only that, the names must be differentiated whether they are partners, consultants or merely employed lawyers. The letterhead in his file as well as mine clearly showed that I am the Principal lawyer in the firm at that time. The person still refused as he was merely following “Standard Operating Procedure”. I refused to budge as I waited a long time for my turn to collect the original title deed, so I continued to make him see where I was coming from (ie: common sense and some flexibility). Finally, the person relented and told me very clearly, he is making this exception only ONCE! Next time, he will need a letter and to put it clearly, “this is NON NEGOTIABLE in the future!” Will talk about other stories in the next posting.