- Joined
- Mar 16, 2017
- Messages
- 576
- Points
- 28
The trend of retired SAF scholars moving directly into leadership roles in private organisations has become increasingly problematic. While they bring credentials from their military careers, their skills often fail to align with the demands of the corporate world.
This misalignment is starkly evident in cases like Neptune Orient Lines (NOL), which struggled under SAF leadership. The company, once a national asset, was sold off after years of poor performance, only for its new owners to turn an immediate profit. Such outcomes highlight the disconnect between military-style management and the complexities of running competitive, profit-driven enterprises.
A significant concern is the rigid hierarchical approach that SAF leaders often adopt, which contrasts sharply with the collaborative and innovative culture needed in private organisations. At SMRT, a former military officer’s tenure was marked by poor communication and failure to address deep-seated operational issues, leading to high-profile breakdowns that eroded public confidence.
This top-down approach might work in a structured military setting but struggles in environments that require agile thinking and stakeholder engagement.
The insertion of military leaders into private organisations also undermines morale among seasoned professionals within these companies. Employees who have dedicated years to climbing the ranks are often overlooked in favor of parachuted leaders with little industry experience.
The situation at SingPost, where poor leadership decisions and mismanagement of operational challenges caused reputational damage, is a glaring example. Such appointments create resentment, reduce motivation, and risk driving away talented employees who feel undervalued.
Moreover, the recurring pattern of ex-SAF leaders underperforming in the private sector raises questions about meritocracy. Many SAF scholars seem to treat their military careers as a stepping stone to lucrative corporate roles rather than a commitment to serving the nation.
This mentality leads to a cycle where leadership positions are awarded based on connections and prestige rather than capability. The rapid success of NOL’s new owners post-sale exemplifies how easily mismanagement can squander national resources when inappropriate appointments are made.
For Singapore’s private sector to thrive, companies must prioritize competency and relevant experience over impressive titles. Hiring practices should focus on candidates with a proven track record in the relevant industry, not just those with prestigious resumes.
The repeated failures of SAF alumni in leadership roles, particularly in high-profile cases like NOL, SMRT, and SingPost, serve as cautionary tales. Without a shift in mindset, this trend will continue to undermine Singapore’s competitiveness and public confidence in both corporate and government institutions.
This misalignment is starkly evident in cases like Neptune Orient Lines (NOL), which struggled under SAF leadership. The company, once a national asset, was sold off after years of poor performance, only for its new owners to turn an immediate profit. Such outcomes highlight the disconnect between military-style management and the complexities of running competitive, profit-driven enterprises.
A significant concern is the rigid hierarchical approach that SAF leaders often adopt, which contrasts sharply with the collaborative and innovative culture needed in private organisations. At SMRT, a former military officer’s tenure was marked by poor communication and failure to address deep-seated operational issues, leading to high-profile breakdowns that eroded public confidence.
This top-down approach might work in a structured military setting but struggles in environments that require agile thinking and stakeholder engagement.
The insertion of military leaders into private organisations also undermines morale among seasoned professionals within these companies. Employees who have dedicated years to climbing the ranks are often overlooked in favor of parachuted leaders with little industry experience.
The situation at SingPost, where poor leadership decisions and mismanagement of operational challenges caused reputational damage, is a glaring example. Such appointments create resentment, reduce motivation, and risk driving away talented employees who feel undervalued.
Moreover, the recurring pattern of ex-SAF leaders underperforming in the private sector raises questions about meritocracy. Many SAF scholars seem to treat their military careers as a stepping stone to lucrative corporate roles rather than a commitment to serving the nation.
This mentality leads to a cycle where leadership positions are awarded based on connections and prestige rather than capability. The rapid success of NOL’s new owners post-sale exemplifies how easily mismanagement can squander national resources when inappropriate appointments are made.
For Singapore’s private sector to thrive, companies must prioritize competency and relevant experience over impressive titles. Hiring practices should focus on candidates with a proven track record in the relevant industry, not just those with prestigious resumes.
The repeated failures of SAF alumni in leadership roles, particularly in high-profile cases like NOL, SMRT, and SingPost, serve as cautionary tales. Without a shift in mindset, this trend will continue to undermine Singapore’s competitiveness and public confidence in both corporate and government institutions.
