Banjir Jakarta, Seandainya Jokowi Tak Didorong-dorong "Nyapres"...
Bekasi, Saco-Indonesia.com — Turunnya hujan dua hari berturut-turut, Sabtu (11/1/2014) dan Minggu (12/1/2014), genangan dan banjir sudah menyebar di Jakarta. Bukan salah Gubernur DKI Jakarta Joko Widodo tentu saja. Namun, andai saja wacana pengusungan Jokowi menjadi calon presiden tak semencuat hari-hari ini, barangkali pemikiran untuk solusi banjir Jakarta akan dipikul rata oleh lebih banyak tokoh. Apa hubungannya?
"Baru hujan dua hari, yang itu pun belum paling lebat, kita sudah melihat banjir dan macet di Jakarta hari ini. Tak beda dengan zaman Foke (Fauzi Bowo), mungkin malah memburuk," ujar Wakil Ketua DPP Partai Amanat Nasional, Dradjad Hari Wibowo, memulai perbincangan soal banjir Jakarta, Senin (13/1/2014).
Dradjad sedang tidak bicara soal kepentingan politik partainya. "Saya tahu akan dicaci para pendukung Jokowi karena pendapat saya ini," kata Dradjad sebelum mengemukakan pendapatnya lebih lanjut. "Tapi untuk kebaikan, saya siap menerima," ujar dia.
Jokowi, kata Dradjad, adalah tokoh politik yang cemerlang. Menurut dia, Jokowi punya kesempatan emas menjadi Gubernur DKI Jakarta yang sukses, bahkan pemimpin nasional pada saatnya kelak. "Sayangnya, Jokowi 'tersandera' oleh wacana pencapresan yang terlalu awal. Dia disandera pendukung-pendukungnya sendiri yang tak sabaran ingin 'ngatur negara'," papar dia.
Implikasi dari wacana yang terus bergulir bak bola salju tentang pencapresan Jokowi, menurut Dradjad, menempatkan Jokowi pada posisi terjepit. Tak hanya dia, banyak tokoh nasional pun yang menjadi canggung untuk turun tangan membantu Jokowi menangani masalah Jakarta.
"Jokowi tidak lagi mendapatkan dukungan penuh tokoh-tokoh nasional yang dulu 'membawa' Jokowi dari Solo ke Jakarta," kata Dradjad. Prabowo dan Jusuf Kalla, misalnya, menurut Dradjad, tidak akan nyaman sekarang ketika melihat orang yang mereka orbitkan justru "menelan" mereka.
"Demikian pula ibu Mega (Megawati Soekarnoputri)," imbuh Dradjad. Menurut Dradjad, saat ini Megawati dipojokkkan oleh orang-orang yang tak paham etika politik. Presiden dan para menteri yang notabene mayoritas berlatar belakang partai politik menjadi "berhitung" kalau terkait dengan program kerja Jakarta.
"Mereka (para pejabat) ingin memastikan bahwa rakyat tahu program itu dari pemerintah pusat, bukan dari pemerintah daerah DKI Jakarta, apalagi Jokowi," papar Dradjad. Padahal, persoalan Jakarta tak akan bisa diselesaikan sendirian oleh Jokowi. "Jakarta butuh usaha bersama kita semua. All out," tegas dia.
Jakarta, kata Dradjad, adalah salah satu kota paling kacau di dunia. Sutiyoso, sebut dia, sudah melakukan banyak terobosan, mulai dari membongkar kekumuhan Monas dan Stadion Menteng, hingga memunculkan bus transjakarta.
Fauzi Bowo, lanjut Dradjad, bagaimanapun adalah pembangun jalan layang Antasari dan bahkan Casablanca. "Namun, dengan 12 juta penduduk pada siang hari, beban Jakarta jauh lebih berat daripada Singapura bahkan London sekalipun."
Melepaskan kepentingan pragmatis partai politik terkait pemilu, Dradjad berharap, banjir yang sudah datang lagi di Jakarta, meski hujan belum lebat-lebatnya di Jabodetabek, menjadi "wake up call" bagi para pendukung Jokowi untuk tak buru-buru mengusung Jokowi ke pemilu presiden. "Berpolitik itu perlu proses, tidak bisa instan," ujar dia.
Dradjad menegaskan pendapatnya ini lagi-lagi bukan berdasarkan pertimbangan pendek jabatannya sebagai wakil ketua umum partai kompetitor Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan (PDI-P), partai pengusung Jokowi.
"Saya akademisi dan profesional di bidang keuangan, bukan semata politisi," kata Dradjad. Sebagai pembanding, dia menyebutkan tokoh-tokoh nasional di negara lain yang tak punya cerita "tiba-tiba" menjadi kepala negara.
"Lihat pengalaman Bush, Clinton, bahkan Merkel dan Putin. Ada tahapannya," kata dia. Kembali ke soal banjir, Dradjad berkomentar singkat, "Saya ingin Mas Jokowi berhasil memperbaiki Jakarta kita bersama."
How Some Men Fake an 80-Hour Workweek, and Why It Matters
Imagine an elite professional services firm with a high-performing, workaholic culture. Everyone is expected to turn on a dime to serve a client, travel at a moment’s notice, and be available pretty much every evening and weekend. It can make for a grueling work life, but at the highest levels of accounting, law, investment banking and consulting firms, it is just the way things are.
Except for one dirty little secret: Some of the people ostensibly turning in those 80- or 90-hour workweeks, particularly men, may just be faking it.
Many of them were, at least, at one elite consulting firm studied by Erin Reid, a professor at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. It’s impossible to know if what she learned at that unidentified consulting firm applies across the world of work more broadly. But her research, published in the academic journal Organization Science, offers a way to understand how the professional world differs between men and women, and some of the ways a hard-charging culture that emphasizes long hours above all can make some companies worse off.
Ms. Reid interviewed more than 100 people in the American offices of a global consulting firm and had access to performance reviews and internal human resources documents. At the firm there was a strong culture around long hours and responding to clients promptly.
“When the client needs me to be somewhere, I just have to be there,” said one of the consultants Ms. Reid interviewed. “And if you can’t be there, it’s probably because you’ve got another client meeting at the same time. You know it’s tough to say I can’t be there because my son had a Cub Scout meeting.”
Some people fully embraced this culture and put in the long hours, and they tended to be top performers. Others openly pushed back against it, insisting upon lighter and more flexible work hours, or less travel; they were punished in their performance reviews.
The third group is most interesting. Some 31 percent of the men and 11 percent of the women whose records Ms. Reid examined managed to achieve the benefits of a more moderate work schedule without explicitly asking for it.
They made an effort to line up clients who were local, reducing the need for travel. When they skipped work to spend time with their children or spouse, they didn’t call attention to it. One team on which several members had small children agreed among themselves to cover for one another so that everyone could have more flexible hours.
A male junior manager described working to have repeat consulting engagements with a company near enough to his home that he could take care of it with day trips. “I try to head out by 5, get home at 5:30, have dinner, play with my daughter,” he said, adding that he generally kept weekend work down to two hours of catching up on email.
Despite the limited hours, he said: “I know what clients are expecting. So I deliver above that.” He received a high performance review and a promotion.
What is fascinating about the firm Ms. Reid studied is that these people, who in her terminology were “passing” as workaholics, received performance reviews that were as strong as their hyper-ambitious colleagues. For people who were good at faking it, there was no real damage done by their lighter workloads.
It calls to mind the episode of “Seinfeld” in which George Costanza leaves his car in the parking lot at Yankee Stadium, where he works, and gets a promotion because his boss sees the car and thinks he is getting to work earlier and staying later than anyone else. (The strategy goes awry for him, and is not recommended for any aspiring partners in a consulting firm.)
A second finding is that women, particularly those with young children, were much more likely to request greater flexibility through more formal means, such as returning from maternity leave with an explicitly reduced schedule. Men who requested a paternity leave seemed to be punished come review time, and so may have felt more need to take time to spend with their families through those unofficial methods.
The result of this is easy to see: Those specifically requesting a lighter workload, who were disproportionately women, suffered in their performance reviews; those who took a lighter workload more discreetly didn’t suffer. The maxim of “ask forgiveness, not permission” seemed to apply.
It would be dangerous to extrapolate too much from a study at one firm, but Ms. Reid said in an interview that since publishing a summary of her research in Harvard Business Review she has heard from people in a variety of industries describing the same dynamic.
High-octane professional service firms are that way for a reason, and no one would doubt that insane hours and lots of travel can be necessary if you’re a lawyer on the verge of a big trial, an accountant right before tax day or an investment banker advising on a huge merger.
But the fact that the consultants who quietly lightened their workload did just as well in their performance reviews as those who were truly working 80 or more hours a week suggests that in normal times, heavy workloads may be more about signaling devotion to a firm than really being more productive. The person working 80 hours isn’t necessarily serving clients any better than the person working 50.
In other words, maybe the real problem isn’t men faking greater devotion to their jobs. Maybe it’s that too many companies reward the wrong things, favoring the illusion of extraordinary effort over actual productivity.