Aquino: I should have taken more active role in crisis
But defends policy not to micro-manage during hostage situations
MANILA, Philippines - President Benigno Aquino III on Thursday admitted shortcomings in the first real test of his fledgling administration after a hostage incident in Rizal Park led to the deaths of 8 Hong Kong tourists.
Speaking in a special panel interview in Malacañang, Aquino said an official investigation on the August 23 hostage crisis is seeking to find out why police failed to rescue all 25 hostages inside the hijacked bus in Rizal Park.
"We can't say that we did right because people died. There was a failure in a sense that not all the hostages were rescued 100%. Now I can't promise and no country that has had more experience in these situations can promise that they were perfect each time out. You can choose any country and I will tell you when they failed. Having said that, my fault then was I trusted people that if they committed to the President, they would accomplish it in the exact manner that it was agreed on," he said.
Aquino said he should have taken a more active role in handling the crisis after seeing that the Metro Manila police chief was not backing up the ground commander in handling the crisis.
He said he was monitoring the 12-hour hostage crisis constantly but was assured that the situation was well in hand because the hostage-taker was releasing hostages periodically.
He also said he had faith in the capabilities of National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) chief Leocadio Santiago, the former commander of the Special Action Forces (SAF), and Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, head of the local crisis management committee, who were both there at the hostage scene.
"In hindsight, perhaps I should have taken a more active role in that the belief that General Santiago would oversee [Manila Police District chief Rodolfo] Magtibay properly and completely did not happen," he said.
He said his shortcoming in the incident was that he trusted people's word that the SAF, which is more equipped in handling hostage situations, would be used if there was a final assault on the hijacked bus.
The government of President Aquino has taken flak for the bloody outcome of the August 23 hostage crisis that saw 9 people, including 8 Chinese Hong Kong tourists, killed inside a hijacked bus at Rizal Park.
Thursday's panel interview saw Aquino fielding questions from news anchors of TV stations ABS-CBN, GMA-7 and TV5.
During the interview, Aquino said he gave instructions to Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Jesus Verzosa to ensure the safety of the hostages and only conduct an assault on the bus as the last option.
He admitted that the decision to handcuff the brother of the hostage-taker during a crucial part of the crisis could have been handled differently especially since it was covered live on TV and eventually led to the shooting of the hostages.
He also said he was irked when he saw the Manila police Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team fail to enter hijacked bus immediately after launching the assault.
No need to micro-manage
Asked if he should have been more "hands on" in managing the situation, the President said he agreed with the position to take a low profile during the negotiations so as not to embolden the hostage-taker to make outrageous demands.
He said he gave the ground commander and the local crisis committee a free hand since he did not want to interfere in their decisions on how best to resolve the crisis.
"I did come in but I did not micro-manage. I did not want to lessen the capability of the scene commanders to make their own decisions," he said.
Aquino said his management style is to delegate tasks to his appointees once a clear-cut agenda and policies have been defined.
"I really have been trained that it is best to delegate to people once clear-cut policies have been defined. It goes without saying that I cannot be managing every department on a day-to-day basis all the time. That will not serve the interest of the people best," he said.
The President said delegating tasks to the designated officials, instead of micro-managing them, has led to good results in the first 2 months of his administration.
He said Energy Secretary Rene Almendras was able to solve the looming energy crisis in Luzon in one day instead of the 4 days first offered by power companies. He said the heads of the agriculture and science and technology departments saved P30 million-P60 million after uncovering overpriced equipment that was due for purchase.
Aquino said it is not his style to take credit for everything done right by government.
"I don't think I should be campaigning everyday. What is important for me is that credit is given to those who did the work but what is more important is the obligation to the people is done," he said.
In the case of the hostage crisis, he said it was a conscious choice on his part to let those who had hostage training to take charge of the situation.
"I can stay there, have my picture taken by everybody and show to the public that I am so concerned about this. But at the same time, I will impede the abilities and the efficiencies that the people who are trained to handle these things can do and that was a conscious decision. Don't second-guess them. Don't be at their backs and really try to be a back-seat driver. It would have not helped if someone was looking over their shoulders," he said.
Factions in Cabinet
During the interview, Aquino also denied that factions inside his Cabinet contributed to his administration's mishandling of the hostage crisis.
Previous reports said a turf war between the Samar faction, composed of close allies and loyalists of the Aquino and Cojuangco families, and the Balay faction, made up of Liberal Party and Hyatt 10 stalwarts and supporters, led to a lack of guidance over the PNP and miscommunication inside the Presidential Communications Group.
Even Secretary Jesse Robredo of the Department of the Interior and Local Government has been dragged into the controversy since he was stripped of the power to supervise the PNP, with the task handed over to his Undersecretary Rico Puno.
Aquino denied that there are separate groups inside his official family that have separate agendas. He also denied that he is paying off his political debts when he appointed individuals associated with the different factions who supported his campaign to various positions in government.
The President said alleged miscommunication among his spokesman could be attributed to either honest mistakes while in some cases, they were merely misquoted.
In the case of Robredo, Aquino said he decided to appoint him in an acting capacity because they have differences in management styles that led to problems during his presidential campaign. He said that during the campaign, Robredo would sometimes schedule for him up to 20 sorties a day without putting in enough time for other activities such as press conferences.
"We had many discussions because he wanted to maximize my exposure since that was his responsibility while for me (I wanted to) make sure to meet all of the obligations, not just yours. We discussed this because I didn't want the 2 of us making decisions, that is why he is in an acting capacity. In fairness to Secretary Robredo, he has demonstrated that there is a clear-cut and correct relationship between the 2 of us," he said.
He said he removed the task of supervising the police from Robredo because he wanted the DILG chief to concentrate on local governance problems such as informal settlers.
"There is no divergence in core principles. We are fighting for the same things. First of all, he practically solved the informal settler problem in Naga under his watch...he has so many qualifications as far as local governance is concerned that his talents are really worthwhile to acquire and to be of service to the state as a whole," he said.
Lessons learned
Aquino said the hostage crisis will lead to various reforms in crisis management protocols and the training of police forces tasked to handle such situations.
He added that officials accountable for the botched hostage rescue would be fired as soon as an official panel finishes its investigation into the crisis.
Asked what was the most painful lesson he learned from the incident, the President recalled his own brush with death when he was shot 5 times during the failed 1987 coup against his mother, President Cory Aquino, in Malacañang.
"In the '87 coup, I saw how one could lose a life so easily. Three of my companions were killed and I was sad because they were not directly involved in the fighting. Since then, I learned to value life even more in that it cannot be snuffed out so quickly," he said.
He also said that the hostage incident will be used to help the government prevent a similar situation from happening in the future.
"Let me just say that this incident will not define this administration. In the end, my administration will be judged on what we have accomplished and what we will accomplish in the coming years: a reduction in poverty and a restoration of a government that is honest in its efforts to build a better nation," he concluded.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Share your views
Leadership 101
“I should have taken more active role in the crisis.”
If he meant he would personally negotiate, then it would really be a big boo boo on his part. It’s good he did not do that.
Nevertheless, I am inclined to believe that his statement does not mean he would personally negotiate with the hostage taker, rather he would:
• Ask his Executive Secretary to summon all the
Presidents’ men whose department is affected by the
crisis and conduct brainstorming for solution of the
crisis.
• Ask the DFA what would be the international
repercussion in a worse-case scenario of having
collateral damages.
• Ask the DILG to be on top of the ground crisis
management committee in mobilizing the best strike
force for this particular crisis together with the
selection of the best negotiator trained for this
particular situation.
• Ask the DOJ, what would be the legal implication of
acceding to the demand of the hostage taker.
After gathering all the data he needs, he would then DEFINES the ultimate objective. And after defining the ultimate objective, he then instructs the DILG to give the negotiator the limit/extent of what the negotiator could give to the hostage taker.
Instruct the DFA to coordinate with the embassy of the concerned hostages, give them assurance that everything is being done to save all the lives of the hostages.
Instruct his Executive Secretary to coordinate with and ask the media to cooperate with the crisis management committee.
Unfortunately, it’s all hindsight now, water under the bridge.
And this is what we get when we put a new graduate, an OJT, to do the job of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a multi-billion organization that needs to turn around.
ANTICIPATION
Destabilization is the first word that should into the mind of any incoming president. It may come in a lot forms (coup d'etat, political uprising, mass uprising and a lot more).
The hostage crisis incident was in the most lowest form of instance that could have ever happen but would have a direct impact in the leadership of the country.
As soon as PNoy became president (or even before he became President) he already had issued statements against certain officials in the armed forces and pnp whom he disliked. Upon showing his dislike to these people he should anticipated incidents coming from this area that could affect his presidency. What he could have done has that as soon as he sat as president he looked carefully at the conditions of these people in order to prevent any uprising. Have in mind always that it is the military and the pnp who gives a final say of support to the government.
Look at what the president is currently doing now, attending drills of hostage crisis scenarios at various parts of the armed forces - pa-pogi points ba?
ANTICIPATION is the key. The government should look at the conditions of the armed forces and pnp in order to render better service to public and assure security of the country.
YES, NO SLEEPING ON THE JOB
YES, NO SLEEPING ON THE JOB talaga. P 40 million pesos lost in trip cancellations is not a pretty picture.
In Other Words...
What PNoy really meant by saying "I should have taken a more active role in crisis" is that he shouldn't have considered Puno's advice for him to have a rest and sleep at around 2 PM on that fateful day.
NO SLEEPING ON THE JOB...PLEASE!!!!
Should Have, Could Have
Mr. President, in a situation where the lives of people are at stake, " I SHOULD HAVE" or "SANA" or "DAPAT PALA" do not have a place! A President should be prepared to handle ANY situation at all times. Doon makikita ang kalibre ng isang magaling na pinuno. There's no room for "ON THE JOB TRAINING" !!!! You SHOULD HAVE asked for KRIS's advice during the hostage situation !
mabuhay noy noy !!
we finally have a virgin prest. wanking in d palace ..on d other hand kris is looking for her third hubby ..i think she admires liz taylor so much
Micromanagement for Dummies
Micromanagement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In business management, micromanagement is a management style where a manager closely observes or controls the work of his or her subordinates or employees. Micromanagement is generally used as a negative term.[1][2]
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Definition
* 2 Symptoms
o 2.1 Distinctions between micromanagement and related forms of mismanagement
* 3 Causes
* 4 Effects
* 5 Remedies
* 6 Literature
* 7 See also
* 8 References
* 9 External links
[edit] Definition
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines[3] micromanagement as "manage[ment] especially with excessive control or attention to details".
Dictionary.com defines micromanagement as "manage[ment] or control with excessive attention to minor details".[4]
The online dictionary Encarta defines micromanagement as "atten[tion] to small details in management: [] control [of] a person or a situation by paying extreme attention to small details".[5]
The notion of micromanagement can be extended to any social context where one person takes a bully approach, in the level of control and influence over the members of a group. Often, this excessive obsession with the most minute of details causes a direct management failure in the ability to focus on the major details.[1]
[edit] Symptoms
Rather than giving general instructions on smaller tasks and then devoting his time to supervising larger concerns, the micromanager monitors and assesses every step of a business process and avoids delegation of decisions.[6] Micromanagers are usually irritated when a subordinate makes decisions without consulting them, even if the decisions are totally within the subordinate's level of authority.
Micromanagement also frequently involves requests for unnecessary and overly detailed reports ("reportomania"). A micromanager tends to require constant and detailed performance feedback and tends to be excessively focused on procedural trivia (often in detail greater than he can actually process) rather than on overall performance, quality and results. This focus on "low-level" trivia often delays decisions, clouds overall goals and objectives, restricts the flow of information between employees, and guides the various aspects of a project in different and often opposed directions. Many micromanagers accept such inefficiencies because those micromanagers consider the outcome of a project less important than their retention of control or of the appearance of control.
The most extreme cases of micromanagement constitute a management pathology closely related to, e.g., workplace bullying and narcissistic behavior. Micromanagement resembles addiction in that although most micromanagers are behaviorally dependent on control over others, both as a lifestyle and as a means of maintaining that lifestyle, many of them fail to recognize and acknowledge their dependence even when everyone around them observes it.[1] Some severe cases of micromanagement arise from other underlying mental-health conditions such as obsessive–compulsive personality disorder, although not all allegations of such conditions by subordinates and other "armchair psychologists" are accurate.
Although micromanagement is often easily recognized by employees, micromanagers rarely view themselves as such. In a form of denial similar to that found in addictive behavior, micromanagers will often rebut allegations of micromanagement by offering a competing characterization of their management style, e.g., as "structured" or "organized." Further, they tend fancy themselves "perfectionists".
[edit] Distinctions between micromanagement and related forms of mismanagement
Micromanagement can be distinguished from the mere tendency of a manager to perform duties assigned to a subordinate. When a manager can perform a worker's job more efficiently than the worker can, the result is merely suboptimal management: Although the company suffers lost opportunities because the manager would be still better at doing his own job (see comparative advantage), the worker's job is still being done well. In micromanagement, the manager not only tells a subordinate what to do but dictates how to do it despite the manager's lack of knowledge of how the task is best performed. In the usual case in which the micromanager is unwilling to assume responsibility should his less-skilled efforts fail, instead letting the micromanaged subordinate(s) "take the fall", the micromanager delegates accountability for failure but not the authority to take alternative actions that would have led to success or at least the mitigation of that failure.
[edit] Causes
The most frequent motivations for micromanagement, such as detail-orientedness, emotional insecurity, and doubts regarding employees' competence, are internal and related to the personality of the manager. Since manager-employee relationships include a difference in power and often in age, workplace psychologists have used models based on transference theory to draw analogies between micromanagement relationships and dysfunctional parent-child relationships, e.g., that both often feature the frequent imposition of double binds and/or a tendency by the authority figure to exhibit hypercriticality.[1] However, external factors such as organizational culture, severe or increased time or performance pressure, and instability of managerial position (either specific to a micromanager's position or throughout an organization) may also play a role.
In many cases of micromanagement, managers select and implement processes and procedures not for business reasons but rather to enable themselves to feel useful and valuable and/or create the appearance of being so. A frequent cause of such micromanagement patterns is a manager's perception or fear that he lacks the competence and creative capabilities necessary for his position in the larger corporate structure. In reaction to this fear, the manager creates a "fiefdom" within which he selects performance standards not on the basis of their relevance to the corporation's interest but rather on the basis of his or her division's ability to satisfy them.
Such motivations for micromanagement often intensify, at both the individual-manager and the organization-wide level, during times of economic hardship. In some cases, managers may have proper goals in mind but place disproportionate emphasis on the role of their division and/or on their own personal role in the furtherance of those goals. In others, managers throughout an organization may engage in behavior that, while protective of their division's interests or their personal interests, harms the organization as a whole.
Less frequently, micromanagement is a tactic consciously chosen for the purpose of eliminating unwanted employees: A micromanager may set unreachable standards that he then invokes as grounds for termination of those employees; these standards may be either specific to certain employees or generally applicable but selectively enforced only against particular employees. Alternatively, the micromanager may attempt by this or other means to create a stressful workplace in which the undesired employees no longer desire to participate; when such stress is severe or pervasive enough, its creation may be regarded as constructive discharge (also known in the United Kingdom as "constructive dismissal" and in the United States as "constructive termination").
[edit] Effects
Regardless of a micromanager's motive for his or her conduct, its potential effects include:
* Creation of ex post resentment in both "vertical" (manager-subordinate) and "horizontal" (subordinate-subordinate) relationships
* Damage to ex ante trust in both vertical and horizontal relationships
* Interference with existing teamwork and inhibition of future teamwork in both vertical relationships (e.g., via malicious compliance) and horizontal relationships (e.g., exploitation of moral hazard created by poorly proportioned effort-reward structures).
Because a pattern of micromanagement suggests to employees that a manager does not trust their work or judgment, it is a major factor in triggering employee disengagement, often to the point of promoting a dysfunctional and hostile work environment in which one or more managers, or even management generally, are labeled "control freaks."[7] Disengaged employees invest time, but not effort or creativity, in the work in which they are assigned. The effects of this phenomenon are worst in "assembly line"-type situations where work is passed from one specialized employee to another, differently specialized employee who cannot perform his or her own task until the previous employee's is complete; in such a situation, apathy among "upstream" employees affects not only their own productivity but also that of their "downstream" colleagues.
Severe forms of micromanagement can completely eliminate trust, stifle opportunities for learning and development of interpersonal skills, and even provoke anti-social behavior. Micromanagers of this severity often rely on inducing fear in the employees to achieve more control and can severely affect self-esteem of employees as well as their mental and physical health. Occasionally, and especially when their micromanagement involves the suppression of constructive criticism that could otherwise lead to internal reform, severe micromanagers affect subordinates' mental and/or physical health to such an extreme that the subordinates' only way to change their workplace environment is to change employers or even leave the workplace despite lacking alternative job prospects (see constructive discharge, supra).
[edit] Remedies
This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2010)
Once micromanagement has taken hold, and is accepted as a work process by management, in an organization, especially during times of organization-wide hardship, its eradication usually requires unilateral action by a person authorized to act on behalf of all divisions of the organization at once, e.g., a CEO or COO. To reverse trends toward micromanagement, the chosen leader must loosen the reins throughout the organization, often at the very time when individual managers' temptation to maintain control is at its highest. Oftentimes, micromanagement becomes so entrenched, it is near impossible to reverse, because the micromanagement has literally become the corporate culture. The company continues down a road garnering a "bad reputation," as workers leave the organization and spread word their experiences, or abuse, to others. Insecurity among management usually forces a continuation of the abusive management practices. Sometimes, an external consultant might be brought into an organization, for a variety of reasons, and might reveal the micromanagement dysfunction, after an analysis. Once exposed, there is usually certain denial and "finger pointing" among management, as to actual accountability.
[edit] Literature
Harry Chambers: "My Way or the Highway: The Micromanagement Survival Guide", Berrett-Koehler Publishers (2004), ISBN 978-1-57675-296-8
[edit] See also
* Control freak
[edit] References
1. ^ a b c d Chambers, Harry (2004). My Way or the Highway. Berrett Koehler Publishers, San Francisco. Retrieved on 20 June 2008
2. ^ Small Business Resource Centre (2006). Also known as Paul.Micromanagement. Retrieved on 01 December 2009.
3. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/micromanage "Micromanage," via Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/, with common dictionary entries directly accessible at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/[entry]
4. ^ Dictionary.com (2008). Definition of micromanage. Retrieved on 21 June 2008.
5. ^ Encarta Dictionary (2008). Definition of micromanage. Retrieved on 21 June 2008. Archived 2009-11-01.
6. ^ McConnell, Charles (2006). Micromanagement is Mismanagement. National Federation of Independent Business. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.
7. ^ Bielaszka-DuVernay, Christina (2008). Micromanage at Your Peril. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Retrieved on 23 June 2008.
[edit] External links
* Softpanorama micromanagement page
very well said Mr. President.
very well said Mr. President. I salute you.
----------------------------
Ako ang Simula ng Pagbabago.
SA ATING PANGULO
Ako'y labis na humahanga sa inyo sa pag-ako sa mga di
kanais-nais na pangyayari. Ika nga COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
pero sa totoo lang, baka kung kayo ay naki-alam sa HOSTAGE
TAKING na nangyari ay baka ito ang simula ng mga susunod
na HOSTAGE TAKING. Sa inyong mga ipinahayag ay SALUDO AKO SA INYO.
MABUHAY KAYO AT PAGKALOOBAN KAYO NG PUONG MAYKAPAL
nakakatindig balahibo yung
nakakatindig balahibo yung pag halik mo sa puwet ni noy! sabagay ganyan talaga ang mga yellow zombies