Our leaders must not just have 'heart' but show 'heart' as well

I REFER to the articles on ministerial pay, 'Be mindful of the affective gap' by Ms Catherine Lim and 'Evaluation coloured by perception' by Dr Andy Ho (ST, April 5).

I disagree with Ms Lim's contention that the commonality of talent in the public and corporate world 'is only in those attributes of mind and personality', and that in the emotional aspect, 'there is a dramatic parting of ways'. I am afraid Ms Lim has in mind the stereotypical larger-than-life, high-profile corporate leaders with big personalities like Mr Lee Iacocca of Chrysler when she said that the ideal CEO is impelled by 'raw ambition and ruthless drive'.

Mr Jim Collins, formerly a faculty member at Stanford University Graduate School of Business, in his book Good To Great, found that great corporate leadership has two sides to the coin, one of professional will and the other of personal humility. Thus, while great CEOs (and Mr Iacocca is not one of them), among other qualities, have ambition and drive, at the same time they channel their ambitions into the company, not the self, and set up successors for even greater success in the next generation. I think Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew personifies these qualities.

Furthermore, Dr Ho's citing of Professor Kim Cameron's study of spectacularly performing leaders who also 'evince generosity and benevolence' points to the fact that the dichotomy between corporate and public talent and leadership is less stark than Ms Lim assumed it to be and the commonality goes beyond the intellect.

Ms Lim is spot on when she says a 'brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material', and that material reward for a minister should be secondary.

But the issue is not that tying high pay to public office holders would upset the balance between material needs and public service. It is about pay commensurate with office holders' responsibilities and performance, public service or not. And as the strategic environment becomes more complex, challenges for office holders become greater as they blaze the trail for Singapore.

I agree with Dr Ho that monetary awards need not be in the form of monthly pay cheques but more performance related, much like what CEOs of private companies get, where bonuses often form the bulk of their annual pay.

On the danger of money becoming the sole or primary motivator for one to stay in public service, I think there is no substantial basis for that fear, especially for high office holders. Having good pay merely removes one of the many barriers stopping the right talent (who have the 'heart') from joining public service.

In any profession, whether in the private or public sector, in order to succeed, the top performers must have Passion for their job, matching Values with the organisation and what it stands for, and the right Talent to deliver. If there is a mismatch in the trinity of passion, values and talent, in time, results do not lie and either the organisation will release the individual or the individual will leave the organisation.

To say that, for example, top lawyers do what they do only because of the money would be demeaning and simplistic. The issue then, is not the danger of office holders lacking intrinsic qualities of 'nobility in purpose' and 'altruistic instincts' (heart), for the selection and appraisal system is rigorous. Instead, it is one of our leaders' ability to communicate effectively to the public, to show 'heart' (just having 'heart' is not enough), as pointed out by Dr Ho.

On this count, I must say Mr Khaw Boon Wan and Mr Lim Swee Say stood out.