分蛋糕不如做蛋糕（佚名）摘录
经济学家约翰•李斯特做过一个著名的实验：甲和乙各自被给予100元现金，甲拥有决定权，他可以把乙的钱全部拿走，如果甲愿意，他可以从自己的钱中分任何j数目给乙。那么，甲会无私地把自己的钱给乙吗？实验结果令人大跌眼镜，只有10%的局中人愿意给乙一些钱，超过60%的局中人从乙处拿钱，超过40%的人拿走了乙所有的钱。这项实验颠覆了人们對 “利他主义是人的本性“的认知。其实，在没有监督的情况下，人是倾向于给自己多分一些钱的。这一发现对现代管理制度的影响意义深远，纯粹依靠 “自律“是不可能管理好团队的，最终还是要靠制度和流程监督。
在如何避免独吞、建立好制度方面，盗墓贼最有发言权。最早的盗墓贼都是两个人搭档，一个人在上面接宝，一个人在下面挖宝。上面的人一看抛上来的都是金银珠宝，禁不住诱惑，就会把绳子扔掉，拿了东西就跑，不管同伙死活。即使是亲兄弟也难以经受得住考验。后来，盗墓搭档就改为父子。儿子在上面拽绳子，父亲在下面挖宝，但是儿子也会有经不住考验的时候。最后，只好改为父亲在上面拽绳子，儿子在下面挖宝。正因为虎毒不食子，所以上下之间达到了制衡效果，再也没有出现过上面的人跑路的现象。
好的制度把鬼变成人，不好的制度把人变成鬼。人都会有自私的一面，但是制度的力量可以避免这一现象的发生。
历史经验告诉我们，完美的分配制度是不存在的，成天想着分蛋糕还不如一起把蛋糕做大。
Verbatim from Tan Sri Dr Ting Chew-Peh's FB:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10214893198820566&id=1145314801
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Saturday, February 3, 2018
Friday, January 19, 2018
Have you found your key?
每个人都有自己的那把钥匙（刘同）
（节录）
有些人在世界上活得很辛苦，尤其是想靠才华养活自己的人。
怕没有人喜欢自己，怕自己才华不够，怕坚持下去有没有未来也不确定，还总要看周围人的脸色行事。不喜欢夜场，却又不愿意放过认识人的机会。想得到别人的帮助，却分辨不出谁真正愿意帮助自己。看不到未来，也看不清自己。这样的人容易一直在黑暗里头破血流，最后心如死灰。
假装成一个人，其实心里知道真实的自己是另一个人。
每个人都有自己的一把钥匙，我们的使命就是不停地去寻找。当你找到自己的那把钥匙，很多事情的发展就顺理成章、势如破竹了。唱歌的就会有自己的样子和风格，写作的也会有自己的样子和风格。
找钥匙是个很难的过程，需要耐心，需要时间，不能和别人比较，不能给自己压力。把双手双脚放在水里，一点一点摸索，直到靠记忆都能背出整片水域的地形。
诚然，有些人一出生就自带钥匙，可绝大多数人的钥匙是需要靠自己寻找的。
不要把时间花在“怕没有人喜欢自己”上，也不要把时间花在“怕自己没有才华”上；不要把时间花在“坚持下去有没有未来也不确定”上，也不要把时间花在“总要看周围人的脸色行事”上；不要把时间花在“不喜欢夜场，却又不愿意放过认识人的机会”上，也不要把时间花在“想得到别人的帮助，却分辨不出谁真正愿意帮助自己”上。
不要急着去看未来，也不要急着想看清自己。安静下来找钥匙，找到属于自己的那把钥匙，一切就会顺利了。
Verbatim from Tan Sri Dr Ting Chew-Peh's FB:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10214753029356417&id=1145314801
（节录）
有些人在世界上活得很辛苦，尤其是想靠才华养活自己的人。
怕没有人喜欢自己，怕自己才华不够，怕坚持下去有没有未来也不确定，还总要看周围人的脸色行事。不喜欢夜场，却又不愿意放过认识人的机会。想得到别人的帮助，却分辨不出谁真正愿意帮助自己。看不到未来，也看不清自己。这样的人容易一直在黑暗里头破血流，最后心如死灰。
假装成一个人，其实心里知道真实的自己是另一个人。
每个人都有自己的一把钥匙，我们的使命就是不停地去寻找。当你找到自己的那把钥匙，很多事情的发展就顺理成章、势如破竹了。唱歌的就会有自己的样子和风格，写作的也会有自己的样子和风格。
找钥匙是个很难的过程，需要耐心，需要时间，不能和别人比较，不能给自己压力。把双手双脚放在水里，一点一点摸索，直到靠记忆都能背出整片水域的地形。
诚然，有些人一出生就自带钥匙，可绝大多数人的钥匙是需要靠自己寻找的。
不要把时间花在“怕没有人喜欢自己”上，也不要把时间花在“怕自己没有才华”上；不要把时间花在“坚持下去有没有未来也不确定”上，也不要把时间花在“总要看周围人的脸色行事”上；不要把时间花在“不喜欢夜场，却又不愿意放过认识人的机会”上，也不要把时间花在“想得到别人的帮助，却分辨不出谁真正愿意帮助自己”上。
不要急着去看未来，也不要急着想看清自己。安静下来找钥匙，找到属于自己的那把钥匙，一切就会顺利了。
Verbatim from Tan Sri Dr Ting Chew-Peh's FB:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10214753029356417&id=1145314801
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Real academics is lonely
学问贵孤往(范一直)
第一流的工作，往往是一个人做出来的。
陈省身晚年回南开大学定居，经常被邀参加学术活动。他说：“大家都鼓吹交流，讲科学需要合作，需要相互帮忙，这有一定道理，但不全对。真正好的工作，第一流的工作，是一个人做出来的。一个人的创见是自己努力和灵感的结晶，很少是一群人讨论的结果。” 钱穆曾说：“学问之事，贵能孤往。” 钱钟书也说过：“学问是荒江野老屋中，二三素心人商量培养之事，朝市之显学，必成俗学。” 一个是国际顶尖数学家，一个是“中国最后的国学大师”，一个是“学者中的学者”，他们做的工作都是“第一流”的。其“第一流”的业绩和“一个人” 的 “孤往”，大有关系存焉。
如今人们重交际、讲公关，就是所谓的教授或学者，都喜欢往名人堆里扎，往热闹场合凑，以便混个脸熟。至于所做的“工作”是不是“第一流”的，则无心问之。办实业的，团队合作很重要；做学问的，相互交流也有必要，但别把交流搞成交际——毕竟做学问和办企业是两回事。学问贵孤往，至少我信。
Verbatim from Tan Sri Dr Ting Chew-Peh's FB linked below:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10214744785790333&id=1145314801
第一流的工作，往往是一个人做出来的。
陈省身晚年回南开大学定居，经常被邀参加学术活动。他说：“大家都鼓吹交流，讲科学需要合作，需要相互帮忙，这有一定道理，但不全对。真正好的工作，第一流的工作，是一个人做出来的。一个人的创见是自己努力和灵感的结晶，很少是一群人讨论的结果。” 钱穆曾说：“学问之事，贵能孤往。” 钱钟书也说过：“学问是荒江野老屋中，二三素心人商量培养之事，朝市之显学，必成俗学。” 一个是国际顶尖数学家，一个是“中国最后的国学大师”，一个是“学者中的学者”，他们做的工作都是“第一流”的。其“第一流”的业绩和“一个人” 的 “孤往”，大有关系存焉。
如今人们重交际、讲公关，就是所谓的教授或学者，都喜欢往名人堆里扎，往热闹场合凑，以便混个脸熟。至于所做的“工作”是不是“第一流”的，则无心问之。办实业的，团队合作很重要；做学问的，相互交流也有必要，但别把交流搞成交际——毕竟做学问和办企业是两回事。学问贵孤往，至少我信。
Verbatim from Tan Sri Dr Ting Chew-Peh's FB linked below:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10214744785790333&id=1145314801
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Value in invaluable
有一家船公司，主要的營業項目為船舶的製造及維修，由於訂單及業務量並不固定，因此員工的雇用多是採用約聘制，以日給的方式計薪。船公司的工作需要搬運材料，操作重型機械，還要爬上爬下檢視船舶的各個細節，因此雇用的多數為年紀較輕的員工。但我卻發現，有一位年近花甲的李師傅，幾乎每次都是老闆的固定班底。
在一次偶然的機會下，船老闆跟我分享了他的人事薪資表，原來這位李師傅，明明工作的績效及貢獻度，遠遠不及其他的年輕人，但老闆付給他的酬勞，卻完全不亞於其他人。
按理說，在工廠的體力活是可被量化的，搬了多少材料，幹了多少活，工程進度有多快等等，貢獻度越高的員工，理應領越多的錢才對，既然如此，老闆為何不多請位年輕人進來，反而要留李師傅在班底中呢？
不是要績效，是要安心
原來，留住李師傅的目的不是為了績效，而是安心。
老闆說，造船廠這樣的工作環境，一次的工安意外，可能就要賠掉近十年的營業額，買樂透是用少少的錢，去買那個可能一夕致富的「萬一」，而我們經營公司的，卻是要努力去避開那個「萬一」。
有經驗沒體力的李師傅，自始他的價值本來就不在體力活上，而是他能夠時時刻刻巡頭巡尾，去降低工安意外發生的可能性，且如果萬一真的有什麼意外發生，只要李師傅在場，他也最懂得如何去將損失降到最低。
光是能讓老闆多安點心，其實就已經是一個無可取代的潛在價值了。
不易量化的人才價值
我們能夠發現在職場上有一些人，可能並沒有過人的學歷及工作績效，但只要有他們在，工作氣氛就是比較好，大家做起事來就是比較放心，其實，這就是一個人才所具有的「潛在價值」。
潛在價值高的員工，通常具有一些特色：
他們鮮少將自己放在顯眼的位置上，而是默默的為組織付出及加分。
他們鮮少會把問題丟給他人，而是樂於分享資訊，激勵他人。
他們願意將精神及時間，放在比較菜，或是學習較慢的同事上，幫助他們更快上軌道。
他們通常可以扮演多種角色，缺溝通者，他們能溝通，缺領導者，他們能領導，就算有雜務需要幫忙，他們也不會推拖。
他們能夠面對危機，更擅於在災難來臨前，就先預防或是想好解決方案。
有趣的是，這些可貴的潛在價值，通常並不容易被量化，反應在員工的工作績效表上，但卻真真切切影響著組織的運轉。
如果遇見了一個目光如豆，只懂得看數字的主管時，這些價值就容易被忽略，久而久之，組織就只剩下懂得做表面工夫的員工了。
看一個員工的價值，不能只看表面工夫，更要看見潛在價值。
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
想成功？你需要逼自己做到的19件难事
想成功你就得去这些难事：
1、你得去打那些你不敢打的电话。
2、你得在你想赖床的时候强迫自己早起。
3、你得付出比你当下获得的回报更多。
4、你得比别人在乎你更在乎他们。
5、哪怕你已经受伤、鲜血淋漓和疼痛难忍，你还是得继续奋斗。
6、你得去体会所有不确定和不安全，虽然谨慎求稳会是你当下更聪明的选择。
7、你得学会领导，哪怕还没有任何人在跟随你。
8、就算别人不会，你也得投资自己。
9、有时候你得看起来像个傻子，因为你要去追寻那些你没有的答案。
10、你得死抠细节，虽然放过它们会更容易。
11、你得展现出成果，虽然你也可以选择找借口。
12、就算有人告诉你要接受那些“事实”，你也得去寻找你自己的解释。
13、你得犯错，让你自己看起来跟个傻子一样。
14、你得经历努力失败再努力的过程。
15、就算你已经上气不接下气，你还得跑得再快一些。
16、你得友好对待那些残忍对你的人。
17、你得在那些完全不合理的最后期限前完成任务。
18、就算出了差错，你也得对自己的行为负责。
19、不管你的前面有什么，你也得一直朝着你想要到达的目的地前进。
想成功你就得去这些难事，那些别人不做的事情，那些让你害怕的事情，那些会让想自己到底还能坚持多久的事情。
正是这些难事定义你，正是这些难事区别着平庸和非凡成功两种不同的生活方式。
遇到这些难事，我们最容易采取的行动是避开，是用借口逃开，是假装它们不适合你。
很简单的事实：普通人是如何取得非凡成就的？他们会做这些难事，这些更聪明、更富有、更有资格的人没有勇气或无法不顾一切拼命去做的事情。
去做这些难事吧，你会为自己到底有多棒而感到惊讶的。
Ref:
FB link to this article.
1、你得去打那些你不敢打的电话。
2、你得在你想赖床的时候强迫自己早起。
3、你得付出比你当下获得的回报更多。
4、你得比别人在乎你更在乎他们。
5、哪怕你已经受伤、鲜血淋漓和疼痛难忍，你还是得继续奋斗。
6、你得去体会所有不确定和不安全，虽然谨慎求稳会是你当下更聪明的选择。
7、你得学会领导，哪怕还没有任何人在跟随你。
8、就算别人不会，你也得投资自己。
9、有时候你得看起来像个傻子，因为你要去追寻那些你没有的答案。
10、你得死抠细节，虽然放过它们会更容易。
11、你得展现出成果，虽然你也可以选择找借口。
12、就算有人告诉你要接受那些“事实”，你也得去寻找你自己的解释。
13、你得犯错，让你自己看起来跟个傻子一样。
14、你得经历努力失败再努力的过程。
15、就算你已经上气不接下气，你还得跑得再快一些。
16、你得友好对待那些残忍对你的人。
17、你得在那些完全不合理的最后期限前完成任务。
18、就算出了差错，你也得对自己的行为负责。
19、不管你的前面有什么，你也得一直朝着你想要到达的目的地前进。
想成功你就得去这些难事，那些别人不做的事情，那些让你害怕的事情，那些会让想自己到底还能坚持多久的事情。
正是这些难事定义你，正是这些难事区别着平庸和非凡成功两种不同的生活方式。
遇到这些难事，我们最容易采取的行动是避开，是用借口逃开，是假装它们不适合你。
很简单的事实：普通人是如何取得非凡成就的？他们会做这些难事，这些更聪明、更富有、更有资格的人没有勇气或无法不顾一切拼命去做的事情。
去做这些难事吧，你会为自己到底有多棒而感到惊讶的。
Ref:
FB link to this article.
Monday, May 9, 2016
Base Rate Fallacy
Q.
What is Base Rate Fallacy, or Base Rate Neglect?
A.
Base rate fallacy, also called base rate neglect or base rate bias, is a formal fallacy. If presented with related base rate information (i.e. generic, general information) and specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case), the mind tends to ignore the former and focus on the latter. [1]
The last sentence: "the mind tends to ignore the former and focus on the latter." is the discussion of this article.
During the election campaign, we have a chat group which we discussed about the various propaganda of the political parties in the bid for the voters' attention.
Of course, there were numerous discontent on the issues of certain management of funds, the taxes and the unfairness among others. The pro-administration and opposition groups had various arguments. Both sides tried to validate their grounds and campaigned for the reasons of their supports and dissatisfaction of one over another.
The process of debate, if without moderator or scope can be both dangerous and damaging. This is the key reason that every debate or discussion need to be first given a theme and next allocated a time limit. Or else, the debate will easily get over heated, out of topic and end up in bad taste.
However, it is not this reason that base rate neglect is here for. The core of this so call psychological behaviour in our discussion is that the party(ies) in discussion (whether on the winning or losing side) tends to be myopic in its own view. This is a natural reaction of 'I am right, and you are wrong'. The party (especially the more dominant side) wants to attend victory, thus trying to out-do the other side. In-so-doing, self-professed fallacy is thus the culprit in causing failure in continual discussion.
For example, during the last State Election, the propaganda of the Opposition is to unite the various divides to attend a just and effective government. In fact, they always claim they are the just and effective but not the current administration - whichever government or country it may be. This is simple and easy to understand.
Some voters, after having evaluated the propaganda might vote in favour of the Opposition despite the fact that this propaganda actually did not appear similar to individual voter.
In order to give a 'base' to ease the discussion in this article, 'equality' is used.
Some voters may like the particular 'fight for equality' campaign but others may view this same campaign as 'lip service'. Yet, the overall picture of the campaign was successful because no census was taken for this 'fight for equality' campaign. In fact, the strategists who came out with these 'equality' tagline might have already known that it could never achieve such effect on certain voters, but yet went ahead with such tagline because there was no better option.
In fact, some thought that equality is important, some did not. Those did not had their reasons for not behaving the way it should because they have special rights, and equality did not sound favourable to them. Rather, it sounded detrimental to their existence!
This general information of 'not everyone is in favour of the equality' is in fact the root of the base rate fallacy. The earlier "equality is right" is 'specific information' and the latter "equality is not my preference" is 'generic or general information'.
In short, the strong feeling of 'equality is right' and the support for Opposition to fight for equality, blurred the judgment to a total outcome. The base - that not everyone view equality as 'equal', is neglected! Hence, the individual's view of the 'right' is facing against a bigger 'wrong'.
At this point, the outcome of the State Election proved that not everyone bought the propaganda of the Opposition. The overall voters in general discarded the notion that Opposition was fighting for their rights, and of course it was landslide victory for the government!
Hence, it is called 'Base Rate Neglect'. This neglect tends to draw its propagator to a fallacy - that what is not true (as it was imaginary and fictitious that everyone agreed with equality) now becomes the sole reason that this debate should be won!
This is psychological warfare in election. The Opposition would use tagline like "inequality" as emotional targets so that those who believe in these claims would firmly fight for the "rights" and discard the rationale thinking that not everyone agrees with such accusation.
But, again democracy is about everyone's right to an opinion, and cast a vote out of free choice. Despite, no man is an island. As a reasonable man on the street, especially in a society of many divides, realizing and having to accommodate the sentiment of the others is key to living in harmony.
This is especially so when the bigger populace is likely not going to buy the campaign of 'equality'. Therefore, to cast your vote for the winning candidate has to ride with the general sentiment. This is important. Or else, you will likely be a lone ranger, and nobody is going to hear your voice.
Remember, propaganda is cheap! The result of a wrong vote - thus the waste of it - is expensive!
Reflection
In Marketing, a FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) sale proposition has to appeal to the masses, not a specific group of segment. A slogan should be viewed as general as possible, thus not sub-selecting segment group. On the other hand, when position of a niche is selected - like a specialist product - its segment being identified - only then a specific slogan be used.
Ref:
Wikipedia search 'Base Rate Fallacy'
Own accounts
What is Base Rate Fallacy, or Base Rate Neglect?
A.
Base rate fallacy, also called base rate neglect or base rate bias, is a formal fallacy. If presented with related base rate information (i.e. generic, general information) and specific information (information only pertaining to a certain case), the mind tends to ignore the former and focus on the latter. [1]
Wikipedia at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
The last sentence: "the mind tends to ignore the former and focus on the latter." is the discussion of this article.
During the election campaign, we have a chat group which we discussed about the various propaganda of the political parties in the bid for the voters' attention.
Of course, there were numerous discontent on the issues of certain management of funds, the taxes and the unfairness among others. The pro-administration and opposition groups had various arguments. Both sides tried to validate their grounds and campaigned for the reasons of their supports and dissatisfaction of one over another.
The process of debate, if without moderator or scope can be both dangerous and damaging. This is the key reason that every debate or discussion need to be first given a theme and next allocated a time limit. Or else, the debate will easily get over heated, out of topic and end up in bad taste.
However, it is not this reason that base rate neglect is here for. The core of this so call psychological behaviour in our discussion is that the party(ies) in discussion (whether on the winning or losing side) tends to be myopic in its own view. This is a natural reaction of 'I am right, and you are wrong'. The party (especially the more dominant side) wants to attend victory, thus trying to out-do the other side. In-so-doing, self-professed fallacy is thus the culprit in causing failure in continual discussion.
For example, during the last State Election, the propaganda of the Opposition is to unite the various divides to attend a just and effective government. In fact, they always claim they are the just and effective but not the current administration - whichever government or country it may be. This is simple and easy to understand.
Some voters, after having evaluated the propaganda might vote in favour of the Opposition despite the fact that this propaganda actually did not appear similar to individual voter.
In order to give a 'base' to ease the discussion in this article, 'equality' is used.
Some voters may like the particular 'fight for equality' campaign but others may view this same campaign as 'lip service'. Yet, the overall picture of the campaign was successful because no census was taken for this 'fight for equality' campaign. In fact, the strategists who came out with these 'equality' tagline might have already known that it could never achieve such effect on certain voters, but yet went ahead with such tagline because there was no better option.
In fact, some thought that equality is important, some did not. Those did not had their reasons for not behaving the way it should because they have special rights, and equality did not sound favourable to them. Rather, it sounded detrimental to their existence!
This general information of 'not everyone is in favour of the equality' is in fact the root of the base rate fallacy. The earlier "equality is right" is 'specific information' and the latter "equality is not my preference" is 'generic or general information'.
In short, the strong feeling of 'equality is right' and the support for Opposition to fight for equality, blurred the judgment to a total outcome. The base - that not everyone view equality as 'equal', is neglected! Hence, the individual's view of the 'right' is facing against a bigger 'wrong'.
At this point, the outcome of the State Election proved that not everyone bought the propaganda of the Opposition. The overall voters in general discarded the notion that Opposition was fighting for their rights, and of course it was landslide victory for the government!
Hence, it is called 'Base Rate Neglect'. This neglect tends to draw its propagator to a fallacy - that what is not true (as it was imaginary and fictitious that everyone agreed with equality) now becomes the sole reason that this debate should be won!
This is psychological warfare in election. The Opposition would use tagline like "inequality" as emotional targets so that those who believe in these claims would firmly fight for the "rights" and discard the rationale thinking that not everyone agrees with such accusation.
But, again democracy is about everyone's right to an opinion, and cast a vote out of free choice. Despite, no man is an island. As a reasonable man on the street, especially in a society of many divides, realizing and having to accommodate the sentiment of the others is key to living in harmony.
This is especially so when the bigger populace is likely not going to buy the campaign of 'equality'. Therefore, to cast your vote for the winning candidate has to ride with the general sentiment. This is important. Or else, you will likely be a lone ranger, and nobody is going to hear your voice.
Remember, propaganda is cheap! The result of a wrong vote - thus the waste of it - is expensive!
Reflection
In Marketing, a FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) sale proposition has to appeal to the masses, not a specific group of segment. A slogan should be viewed as general as possible, thus not sub-selecting segment group. On the other hand, when position of a niche is selected - like a specialist product - its segment being identified - only then a specific slogan be used.
Ref:
Wikipedia search 'Base Rate Fallacy'
Own accounts
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
男人和女人
女人: 今天的我真是太高兴了，你知道吗?
男人: 真的?
女人: 我同事说, 想不到我还這么年轻!
男人: 真好! ... (片刻的沉默).
女人: 我漂亮，你不高兴?!
男人: 我什么都没有講?! 妳做么了?
Translation
Woman: I'm so happy today, you know?
Man: Really?
Woman: You know, my colleague said I look much younger than my age!
Man: That's great! ... (moment of silence).
Woman: Why are you mad if I'm pretty?!
Man: I didn't say a thing! What happen to you?
Interpretation
The two genders don't think the same.
Man only react to question. And, unless there is a valid answer, he would just be quiet.
That is why he would normally acknowledge and confirm, but never give opinion unless being pressed for one. In fact, in meetings man would keep quiet for another reason - not to make a stupid fool out of himself!
In the above conversation, he was not asked an opinion. Therefore, he answered 'Really?' and 'That's great!'.
However, women are creatures of expressions. They want to instil emotion and expressions into every conversation. They are never factual.
Thus, woman in the conversation above installed the emotional element that 'she is not pretty enough' unless the man reaffirms her.
'Why are you mad' is an expression to bring across her emotion of 'I'm pretty'. It was never her intention that 'he is mad at her.'
However, the man never expressed his emotional agreement or disagreement with her that 'she was pretty'. In that moment, he was unsure if a reaffirmation was required. Of course, it was felt unfair being yelled at as he was blank! Indeed, he did not confer any connotation that he disagreed with her view, if any.
So, that is a problem understanding women as men are built by bricks, whereas women are by cement - you need to give certain amount of water and mix them.
It is never that straight forward.
男人: 真的?
女人: 我同事说, 想不到我还這么年轻!
男人: 真好! ... (片刻的沉默).
女人: 我漂亮，你不高兴?!
男人: 我什么都没有講?! 妳做么了?
Translation
Woman: I'm so happy today, you know?
Man: Really?
Woman: You know, my colleague said I look much younger than my age!
Man: That's great! ... (moment of silence).
Woman: Why are you mad if I'm pretty?!
Man: I didn't say a thing! What happen to you?
Interpretation
The two genders don't think the same.
Man only react to question. And, unless there is a valid answer, he would just be quiet.
That is why he would normally acknowledge and confirm, but never give opinion unless being pressed for one. In fact, in meetings man would keep quiet for another reason - not to make a stupid fool out of himself!
In the above conversation, he was not asked an opinion. Therefore, he answered 'Really?' and 'That's great!'.
However, women are creatures of expressions. They want to instil emotion and expressions into every conversation. They are never factual.
Thus, woman in the conversation above installed the emotional element that 'she is not pretty enough' unless the man reaffirms her.
'Why are you mad' is an expression to bring across her emotion of 'I'm pretty'. It was never her intention that 'he is mad at her.'
However, the man never expressed his emotional agreement or disagreement with her that 'she was pretty'. In that moment, he was unsure if a reaffirmation was required. Of course, it was felt unfair being yelled at as he was blank! Indeed, he did not confer any connotation that he disagreed with her view, if any.
So, that is a problem understanding women as men are built by bricks, whereas women are by cement - you need to give certain amount of water and mix them.
It is never that straight forward.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Human is a social creature
“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ”
“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
― Aristotle
Two quotes from the learned Aristotle (384-322 BC).
I started to appreciate them only when I attended 40's. Notwithstanding, it is not too late as I get enlightened before kicking the coffin, neither too soon nor too much. It is just enough to carry on my remaining social life.
Time - you need to repeat the experience of a loner observer to be comfortable with it. Only as you become acquainted with loneliness, that you have a clear mind of what you can 'see'.
Space - you need to have distance to observe people, like observing a pack of wolves on how they position their attacks.
And, once in a while you can join the group and 'taste the medicine' that you had already known.
A conversation below provides a good example. In order to make it a narrative, I put myself as 'X'.
X tried to join by asking if the seat has been taken.
Y (although empty seats around) said "I'm sorry, all seats taken." So, X moved away. To some, this is a disappointment, but not to X, this is naturally a common occurrence. He had been a loner too many times.
X moved over a few benches and finally found a seat not taken. X happily sat down, thanking the beautiful girl who granted the seat.
Trying to settle down comfortably, X tried to strike a conversation with A, B and C.
X said "How's the food, I'm seeing people ordering lobsters?"
A said to B and C, "Why not order some lobsters ourselves?"
B put up hand, "Order Order Order" And, the restaurant staff came to take order. "Three lobsters, please!"
Shortly after, A asked X
"Why are you not ordering your lobster?"
"Well," X said "It is okay, I had lobsters in my place. You all go ahead, I'm okay." And, there is this 'one kind of look' from A, B and C. It seemed 'So, you are not our gang, eh!'.
Another round of taking food from the buffet table, X came back with little food as he did not like to eat full in the evening, he refrained from taking more food to avoid wastage.
"Oh, you don't eat much!" A said, making it a discovery in rocket science!
"Ya, I agree with you. I USUALLY don't eat a lot, after all I'm small in size." X was trying to be nice and sarcastic to retaliate.
"No wonder, for a man, you seem smaller than a girl." That was the reply from A. Getting that, X had to shut up.
Really, it was a sudden awakening within X. With good intention, he did not want to say he had enough of the food and never hard up for such buffet - or lobsters or oysters. In fact, they are never a scarcity in his place. They were to him, larger prawn or mollucks, nothing more nothing great!
“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”
― Aristotle
Two quotes from the learned Aristotle (384-322 BC).
I started to appreciate them only when I attended 40's. Notwithstanding, it is not too late as I get enlightened before kicking the coffin, neither too soon nor too much. It is just enough to carry on my remaining social life.
Everything we do revolves around human in a social manner. Be it in ancient time (by group prayer) or now (by social media), despite the fact that we cannot bring to the future anything, but ourselves, as single soul or individual. You cannot bring with you to heaven or hell your best friend, your spouse or even your enemy (how nice if we could bring our enemies to hell - I'm sure many won't mind joining them).
Yet, we want others to be with us agreeing with what we say, if possible, in politics, in religion, in school or in party tonight to karaoke.
So, it best describes Aristotle's 'Social Animal... Does not... Is either beast or GOD'. Which simply put is: if you do not live with your social grouping, you are 'either animal or GOD'.
For, I personally think that Animals in fact, live in their own Animal Society - in herds or packs. Like Deer and Wolf, they organize in social groupings. For orangutan too, there is an alpha male who takes charge, and has the dominance to mate. All for better survival. Human too, in social interactions.
For, I personally think that GOD is in fact, one and many. So, there is probably a little complicated social system among it (them). This, I do not want to over state my opinion.
Anyway, the reason I want to write this article is the observation I had during a recent meeting.
People conjugate from different parts of the country. There are teams by brands, and business units, and geographical regions. Furthermore, there are hierarchy of position in their respective jobs, interlinking in a convoluted spiderweb of people with various characters and age.
Shortly, you will see some behaviours which are naturally intimidating, or artificially annoying in the making of 'biggest noise, or largest attention seeking' in the conjugation. Then, you will see and hear the 'agree with me' 'I'm right, you're wrong' types of leadership statements. Even at times, not eating the same food is considered 'unwise' or 'not cool stuff'.
You start seeing grouping being formed, alliances and best spotlights - do the saga of this and that. Many a time, drinking and smoking for men, and rumour mongering (complaining) and checking handphones for ladies.
The common ground would be the smokers, as they will form a group outside while many are inside sheltered. Irrespective of men or women, the rights or wrongs of smoking, either side has their own definition of such act. Really, nobody really cares.
Amidst, in safeguarding one's position and avoiding conflict, you will see three behaviours.
You start seeing grouping being formed, alliances and best spotlights - do the saga of this and that. Many a time, drinking and smoking for men, and rumour mongering (complaining) and checking handphones for ladies.
The common ground would be the smokers, as they will form a group outside while many are inside sheltered. Irrespective of men or women, the rights or wrongs of smoking, either side has their own definition of such act. Really, nobody really cares.
Amidst, in safeguarding one's position and avoiding conflict, you will see three behaviours.
1. The politicians - the great many who would head their groupings.
2. The followers - these are people who would stick to the chosen group or politicians.
3. The deviants - these are those who choose to be loners. This of course, is the smaller segment of the three.
3. The deviants - these are those who choose to be loners. This of course, is the smaller segment of the three.
I being a loner, is definitely by choice because I understand the selfishness in me that I am never a group player. This, I admit is a mistake in the making for job promotion or any political career I may be lucky in associating.
Historically, I once joined force with the 'social animals' with little achievement and now I realized that such behaviour is not warranted of me in this type of gathering. Although being viewed as 'out caste', I must admit I do not regret, or dismay at the outcome. Observing people from far has become a skill I acquired through time and space.
Time - you need to repeat the experience of a loner observer to be comfortable with it. Only as you become acquainted with loneliness, that you have a clear mind of what you can 'see'.
Space - you need to have distance to observe people, like observing a pack of wolves on how they position their attacks.
And, once in a while you can join the group and 'taste the medicine' that you had already known.
A conversation below provides a good example. In order to make it a narrative, I put myself as 'X'.
X tried to join by asking if the seat has been taken.
Y (although empty seats around) said "I'm sorry, all seats taken." So, X moved away. To some, this is a disappointment, but not to X, this is naturally a common occurrence. He had been a loner too many times.
X moved over a few benches and finally found a seat not taken. X happily sat down, thanking the beautiful girl who granted the seat.
Trying to settle down comfortably, X tried to strike a conversation with A, B and C.
X said "How's the food, I'm seeing people ordering lobsters?"
A said to B and C, "Why not order some lobsters ourselves?"
B put up hand, "Order Order Order" And, the restaurant staff came to take order. "Three lobsters, please!"
Shortly after, A asked X
"Why are you not ordering your lobster?"
"Well," X said "It is okay, I had lobsters in my place. You all go ahead, I'm okay." And, there is this 'one kind of look' from A, B and C. It seemed 'So, you are not our gang, eh!'.
Another round of taking food from the buffet table, X came back with little food as he did not like to eat full in the evening, he refrained from taking more food to avoid wastage.
"Oh, you don't eat much!" A said, making it a discovery in rocket science!
"Ya, I agree with you. I USUALLY don't eat a lot, after all I'm small in size." X was trying to be nice and sarcastic to retaliate.
"No wonder, for a man, you seem smaller than a girl." That was the reply from A. Getting that, X had to shut up.
Really, it was a sudden awakening within X. With good intention, he did not want to say he had enough of the food and never hard up for such buffet - or lobsters or oysters. In fact, they are never a scarcity in his place. They were to him, larger prawn or mollucks, nothing more nothing great!
So, getting stressed over a comment wasn't worth it. He however, sat quietly for a while. As people moved away, either to the washroom or to replenish their plates, the ordered lobsters came. There were double orders. Probably, in the excitement of the monster prawns and overwhelming demand, there was some delay in serving. Therefore, B under the command of A, ordered twice. However, there was nobody left at the table accept X at time of serving.
So, the restaurant staff asked if it was ordered by the correct table. X said "Yes, but they are not around." For a moment, the restaurant staff was having the impression that X was eating all the lobsters himself!
Little while later, A, B and C came back. They took some of the lobsters, and left a large portion not eaten. What a waste!
Human is a social animal, is true and I witness it again and again. In fact, probably only A wanted to eat lobster, B followed and being a follower, ordered for A. C in fact, never stated her opinion. She might have never wanted, but tagged along just to be in the 'cool' as she was with the group.
So, being a "social animal" is both true by the meaning of "social" and "animal" separately. Aristotle's quote is here proven by ordering of lobsters. What a sad thing in life!
Hence, the second quote:
"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom"
How many of us really know ourselves?
How many of us can be truthful to ourselves?
How many of us can be ourselves?
Reflection
If you are still younger than 40 years old. You might be execused from not knowing yourself. But, beyond 40, there is no more execuse. You have passed your mid-life assuming you live an average of 80 years old. You can no more waste your time.
We are like a product. Do not follow others. Be yourself. You should have your product distinctive features. There is a different between being yourself and being a team player.
The law is never lenient on you although you did an unlawful act under an order of your team leader. The law punishes the red handed first, not the team leader (who is the master mind). So, don't be a fool following others. Be yourself.
Contracts Act, 1950 in Section 177 specifies Non-liability of employer of agent to do a criminal act.
Ref:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2192.Aristotle
S.177 Contracts Act, 1950.
So, the restaurant staff asked if it was ordered by the correct table. X said "Yes, but they are not around." For a moment, the restaurant staff was having the impression that X was eating all the lobsters himself!
Little while later, A, B and C came back. They took some of the lobsters, and left a large portion not eaten. What a waste!
Human is a social animal, is true and I witness it again and again. In fact, probably only A wanted to eat lobster, B followed and being a follower, ordered for A. C in fact, never stated her opinion. She might have never wanted, but tagged along just to be in the 'cool' as she was with the group.
So, being a "social animal" is both true by the meaning of "social" and "animal" separately. Aristotle's quote is here proven by ordering of lobsters. What a sad thing in life!
Hence, the second quote:
"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom"
How many of us really know ourselves?
How many of us can be truthful to ourselves?
How many of us can be ourselves?
Reflection
If you are still younger than 40 years old. You might be execused from not knowing yourself. But, beyond 40, there is no more execuse. You have passed your mid-life assuming you live an average of 80 years old. You can no more waste your time.
We are like a product. Do not follow others. Be yourself. You should have your product distinctive features. There is a different between being yourself and being a team player.
The law is never lenient on you although you did an unlawful act under an order of your team leader. The law punishes the red handed first, not the team leader (who is the master mind). So, don't be a fool following others. Be yourself.
Contracts Act, 1950 in Section 177 specifies Non-liability of employer of agent to do a criminal act.
Ref:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/2192.Aristotle
S.177 Contracts Act, 1950.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
My daily bread
Q.
What should be my daily bread?
A.
What should be my daily bread?
A.
1、一個年輕人，如果三年的時間裡，沒有任何想法，他這一生，就基本這個樣子，沒有多大改變了。
[A young man, if within 3 years he has no opinion of what he is, he would likely maintain status quo, there won't be any major changes to him.]
2、成功者就是膽識加魄力，曾經在火車上聽人談起過溫州人的成功，說了這麼三個字，“膽子大”。這其實，就是膽識，而拿得起，放得下，就是魄力。
[Winners are people with guts and passion, once there are people talking about the success of Wenzhou people on a train, with such words like "courageous". In fact, it is courage, and afford to take decision, and admit the defeat, is courageous.]
3、這個世界，有這麼一小撮的人，打開報紙，是他們的消息，打開電視，是他們的消息，街頭巷尾，議論的是他們的消息，仿佛世界是為他們準備的，他們能夠呼風喚雨，無所不能。你的目標，應該是努力成為這一小撮人。
[In this world, there is a handful of people who are centre of attention. Everywhere is filled with their influence as if the world is theirs and they can do anything they want, nothing is impossible. Your goal should be to become this small group of people.]
4、如果，你真的愛你的爸媽，愛你的女朋友，就好好的去奮鬥，去拼搏吧，這樣，你才有能力，有經濟條件，有自由時間，去陪他們，去好好愛他們。
[If you really love your parents and girlfriend, you should endeavour to advance in your career, to fight for a course. Then only, you have the financial ability and free time to accompany and love them.]
5、這個社會，是快魚吃慢魚，而不是慢魚吃快魚。
[In this system if society, it is those swift predator fish that eats the sluggish fishes, not the other way round.]
6、這個社會，是贏家通吃，輸者一無所有，社會，永遠都是只以成敗論英雄。
[In this society, winners take all, losers have nothing, the system is always winner are heros.]
7、如果你問周圍朋友詞語，如果十個人，九個人說不知道，那麼，這是一個機遇，如果十個人，九個人都知道了，就是一個行業。
[If you ask your surrounding and 9 out of 10 people say they don't know, then it is an opportunity, however if 9 out of 10 already knew about it, it is a profession.]
8、任何一個行業，一個市場，都是先來的有肉吃，後來的湯都沒的喝。
[No matter what profession or market, it is those who arrive earlier have got meat to eat, and those arrive latter have no soup to drink.]
9、這個世界上，一流的人才，可以把三流項目做成二流或更好，但是，三流人才，會把一流項目，做的還不如三流。
[In this world, first class genius can do wanders on lousy jobs, but the pariahs would do damages to good jobs, worse than the pariah themselves.]
10、趁著年輕，多出去走走看看。讀萬卷書，不如行萬里路，行萬里路，不如閱人無數。
[Take your time while you are young to go around sightseeing. It is better to go around than reading on papers, get to know people around.]
11、與人交往的時候，多聽少說。這就是，上帝為什麼給我們一個嘴巴兩個耳朵的原因。
[When interacting with people, listen more and talk less. There us a reason why GOD gave us two ears and a mouth.]
12、日常工作之外應當多去鍛煉身體，擁有一個健康的身體才是我們奮鬥的本錢！
[Other than work every day, more is about exercise, a healthy body is the foundation for our struggle in life.]
13、不要裝大，對於裝大的人，最好的辦法就是，撿塊磚頭，悄悄跟上去，一下子從背後放倒他。
14、不要隨便說髒話，這會讓別人覺得你沒涵養，不大願意和你交往。即使交往，也是敷衍。因為他內心認定你素質很差。
15、想要抽煙的時候，先問下周圍的人可不可以，要學會尊重別人。少在女生面前耍酷抽煙，你不知道，其實她們內心很反感。
16、買衣服的時候，要自己去挑，不要讓家人給你買，雖然你第一第二次買的都不怎麼樣，可是，你會慢慢有眼光的。
17、要想進步，就只有吸取教訓，成功的經驗都是歪曲的，成功了，想怎麼說都可以，失敗者沒有發言權，可是，你可以通過他的事例反思，總結。教訓，不僅要從自己身上吸取，還要從別人身上吸取。
18、學習，學習，再學習，這個社會競爭太激烈了，你不學習，就會被淘汰。競爭這麼激烈，所以，一定要認識一點，大學畢業了，不是學習結束了，而是學習剛剛開始。
19、如果你不是歌手，不是畫家，也不是玩行為藝術的，那麼，請在平時注意你的衣著。現在這個社會，衣著能表現出你屬於哪一個群體，哪一個圈子。
20、記住，平均每天看電視超過三個小時以上的，一定都是那些月收入不超過兩千元的，如果你想要月收入超過兩千，請不要把時間浪費在電視上。同樣的道理，那些平均每天玩網路遊戲或聊天超過三個小時以上的，也都是那些月收入不超過兩千的。
21、因為窮人很多，並且窮人沒有錢，所以，他們才會在網路上聊天抱怨，消磨時間。你有見過哪個企業老總或主管經理有事沒事經常在QQ群裡閒聊的？
22、無論你以後是不是從事銷售部門，都看一下關於行銷的書籍。因為，生活中，你處處都是在向別人推銷展示你自己。
23、平時的時候，多和你的朋友溝通交流一下，不要等到需要朋友的?明時，才想到要和他們聯繫，到了社會，你才會知道，能夠認識一個真正的朋友，有多難?
24、如果你想知道自己將來的年收入如何。找你最經常來往的六個朋友，把他們的年收入加起來，除以六，就差不多是你的了。這個例子，可以充分的說明一點，物以類聚。
25、不要聽信身邊人的話，大一不談戀愛，好的女孩子就被別人都挑走了。想想，剛上大一就耐不住寂寞，受不住誘惑，而去談戀愛的女孩子，值得自己去追嗎？大學裡，可以有一場愛情，可是，不要固執地認為，剛上大一，就必須要談戀愛。
26、記得，要做最後出牌的人，出讓別人覺得出其不意的牌，在他們以為你要輸掉的時候，這樣，你才能贏得牌局。
27、關於愛情，有這麼一句話，沒有麵包，怎麼跳舞？無論什麼時候，你決定去好好愛一個人的時候，一定要考慮給她你能給予的最好的物質生活。
28、給自己定一個五年的目標，然後，把它分解成一年一年，半年半年的，三個月的，一個月的。這樣，你才能找到自己的目標和方向。
29、無論什麼時候，記住尊嚴這兩個字，做人是要有尊嚴，有原則，有底線的。否則，沒有人會尊重你。
30、如果，我只能送你一句忠告，那就是，這個世界上沒有免費的午餐，永遠不要走捷徑！
Ref:
http://my.vdoobv.com/article2.aspx?id=1034037
[X] Translation mine.
[A young man, if within 3 years he has no opinion of what he is, he would likely maintain status quo, there won't be any major changes to him.]
2、成功者就是膽識加魄力，曾經在火車上聽人談起過溫州人的成功，說了這麼三個字，“膽子大”。這其實，就是膽識，而拿得起，放得下，就是魄力。
[Winners are people with guts and passion, once there are people talking about the success of Wenzhou people on a train, with such words like "courageous". In fact, it is courage, and afford to take decision, and admit the defeat, is courageous.]
3、這個世界，有這麼一小撮的人，打開報紙，是他們的消息，打開電視，是他們的消息，街頭巷尾，議論的是他們的消息，仿佛世界是為他們準備的，他們能夠呼風喚雨，無所不能。你的目標，應該是努力成為這一小撮人。
[In this world, there is a handful of people who are centre of attention. Everywhere is filled with their influence as if the world is theirs and they can do anything they want, nothing is impossible. Your goal should be to become this small group of people.]
4、如果，你真的愛你的爸媽，愛你的女朋友，就好好的去奮鬥，去拼搏吧，這樣，你才有能力，有經濟條件，有自由時間，去陪他們，去好好愛他們。
[If you really love your parents and girlfriend, you should endeavour to advance in your career, to fight for a course. Then only, you have the financial ability and free time to accompany and love them.]
5、這個社會，是快魚吃慢魚，而不是慢魚吃快魚。
[In this system if society, it is those swift predator fish that eats the sluggish fishes, not the other way round.]
6、這個社會，是贏家通吃，輸者一無所有，社會，永遠都是只以成敗論英雄。
[In this society, winners take all, losers have nothing, the system is always winner are heros.]
7、如果你問周圍朋友詞語，如果十個人，九個人說不知道，那麼，這是一個機遇，如果十個人，九個人都知道了，就是一個行業。
[If you ask your surrounding and 9 out of 10 people say they don't know, then it is an opportunity, however if 9 out of 10 already knew about it, it is a profession.]
8、任何一個行業，一個市場，都是先來的有肉吃，後來的湯都沒的喝。
[No matter what profession or market, it is those who arrive earlier have got meat to eat, and those arrive latter have no soup to drink.]
9、這個世界上，一流的人才，可以把三流項目做成二流或更好，但是，三流人才，會把一流項目，做的還不如三流。
[In this world, first class genius can do wanders on lousy jobs, but the pariahs would do damages to good jobs, worse than the pariah themselves.]
10、趁著年輕，多出去走走看看。讀萬卷書，不如行萬里路，行萬里路，不如閱人無數。
[Take your time while you are young to go around sightseeing. It is better to go around than reading on papers, get to know people around.]
11、與人交往的時候，多聽少說。這就是，上帝為什麼給我們一個嘴巴兩個耳朵的原因。
[When interacting with people, listen more and talk less. There us a reason why GOD gave us two ears and a mouth.]
12、日常工作之外應當多去鍛煉身體，擁有一個健康的身體才是我們奮鬥的本錢！
[Other than work every day, more is about exercise, a healthy body is the foundation for our struggle in life.]
13、不要裝大，對於裝大的人，最好的辦法就是，撿塊磚頭，悄悄跟上去，一下子從背後放倒他。
14、不要隨便說髒話，這會讓別人覺得你沒涵養，不大願意和你交往。即使交往，也是敷衍。因為他內心認定你素質很差。
15、想要抽煙的時候，先問下周圍的人可不可以，要學會尊重別人。少在女生面前耍酷抽煙，你不知道，其實她們內心很反感。
16、買衣服的時候，要自己去挑，不要讓家人給你買，雖然你第一第二次買的都不怎麼樣，可是，你會慢慢有眼光的。
17、要想進步，就只有吸取教訓，成功的經驗都是歪曲的，成功了，想怎麼說都可以，失敗者沒有發言權，可是，你可以通過他的事例反思，總結。教訓，不僅要從自己身上吸取，還要從別人身上吸取。
18、學習，學習，再學習，這個社會競爭太激烈了，你不學習，就會被淘汰。競爭這麼激烈，所以，一定要認識一點，大學畢業了，不是學習結束了，而是學習剛剛開始。
19、如果你不是歌手，不是畫家，也不是玩行為藝術的，那麼，請在平時注意你的衣著。現在這個社會，衣著能表現出你屬於哪一個群體，哪一個圈子。
20、記住，平均每天看電視超過三個小時以上的，一定都是那些月收入不超過兩千元的，如果你想要月收入超過兩千，請不要把時間浪費在電視上。同樣的道理，那些平均每天玩網路遊戲或聊天超過三個小時以上的，也都是那些月收入不超過兩千的。
21、因為窮人很多，並且窮人沒有錢，所以，他們才會在網路上聊天抱怨，消磨時間。你有見過哪個企業老總或主管經理有事沒事經常在QQ群裡閒聊的？
22、無論你以後是不是從事銷售部門，都看一下關於行銷的書籍。因為，生活中，你處處都是在向別人推銷展示你自己。
23、平時的時候，多和你的朋友溝通交流一下，不要等到需要朋友的?明時，才想到要和他們聯繫，到了社會，你才會知道，能夠認識一個真正的朋友，有多難?
24、如果你想知道自己將來的年收入如何。找你最經常來往的六個朋友，把他們的年收入加起來，除以六，就差不多是你的了。這個例子，可以充分的說明一點，物以類聚。
25、不要聽信身邊人的話，大一不談戀愛，好的女孩子就被別人都挑走了。想想，剛上大一就耐不住寂寞，受不住誘惑，而去談戀愛的女孩子，值得自己去追嗎？大學裡，可以有一場愛情，可是，不要固執地認為，剛上大一，就必須要談戀愛。
26、記得，要做最後出牌的人，出讓別人覺得出其不意的牌，在他們以為你要輸掉的時候，這樣，你才能贏得牌局。
27、關於愛情，有這麼一句話，沒有麵包，怎麼跳舞？無論什麼時候，你決定去好好愛一個人的時候，一定要考慮給她你能給予的最好的物質生活。
28、給自己定一個五年的目標，然後，把它分解成一年一年，半年半年的，三個月的，一個月的。這樣，你才能找到自己的目標和方向。
29、無論什麼時候，記住尊嚴這兩個字，做人是要有尊嚴，有原則，有底線的。否則，沒有人會尊重你。
30、如果，我只能送你一句忠告，那就是，這個世界上沒有免費的午餐，永遠不要走捷徑！
Ref:
http://my.vdoobv.com/article2.aspx?id=1034037
[X] Translation mine.
Monday, June 22, 2015
Legal means fair?
Q.
Legal means fair?
A.
This is a question I get pondered with over a long time.
If it is not fair, consider 'legal' as a unfair ideology of a legal state of civilazation. Aren't we supposed to be liberal and work for fairness in today's advancement?
Reflection
Put in the reverse way, "unfairness isn't illegal" - which is the opposite of legal is fairness. In this reversal, 'fairness' becomes 'unfairness', 'legal' becomes 'illegal'. The positive sentence becomes reversed and negative - 'is' becomes 'is not'. The resultant - "Unfairness isn't Illegal".
So, the world is by exclusion, until proven guilty he is innocent. There is nothing illegal to be unfair, if you never get caught. The law can make this illegal, but if you never get caught, it is never punished - until proven guilty. May be only GOD will punish in real fairness in the future. But, that again is an unknown - to whom it may concern.
This is a question I get pondered with over a long time.
If it is not fair, consider 'legal' as a unfair ideology of a legal state of civilazation. Aren't we supposed to be liberal and work for fairness in today's advancement?
A good illustration is "smoking is unfair to your partner as you endanger others due to second hand smoke".
Nonetheless, it is only in recent years that this is viewed fair and even more so recently that it became legal in our society in some enclosures like air conditioned places.
There are two issues here.
First is the hardwares or the meaning of fairness or legal. Second is the softwares of how in legal setting such fairness can be enforced and sustained.
Let's not argue over the meaning of 'legal' or 'fair'. For, there are too many legal scenarios not being fair. Like in law, there is no distinction of a third gender - that a man is trapped in the body of a woman. Or, trespass to land - how on earth the trespasser knows it is your land?
And, the second issue of 'software' is even more out of context. For, legally it is hard to enforce certain rules. Take for example, speed limit. How on earth is the speed limit be maintained at 60km/hr or less when nobody is to enforce the rule? Yes, there is signboard. Sometimes, multiples of them. However, when an accident of car knocking down a pedestrian, who is to tell you he was driving beyond the speed limit? Is there camera or forensic expert that is able to show that the victim was rammed over by a car at 59.9km/hr or 60.1km/hr?
Anyway, in the accident, the victim died. You can say, well he is just unlucky. So, is that fair?
So, fairness and legal is never the same denominator. A fair person is harder to live than being 'legal' and not get caught. Most of us are never fair, especially to ourselves, but we are in general 'legal' in the context of civilized living. We aren't fair especially to ourselves because we always make excuses.
In other words, we can be legal - by human standard of the local custom and traditions, but never fair in the context of allowing us the shenanigans of ills and evils, eg. ego, laziness, selfishness and the wealth of double standards.
Let's not argue over the meaning of 'legal' or 'fair'. For, there are too many legal scenarios not being fair. Like in law, there is no distinction of a third gender - that a man is trapped in the body of a woman. Or, trespass to land - how on earth the trespasser knows it is your land?
And, the second issue of 'software' is even more out of context. For, legally it is hard to enforce certain rules. Take for example, speed limit. How on earth is the speed limit be maintained at 60km/hr or less when nobody is to enforce the rule? Yes, there is signboard. Sometimes, multiples of them. However, when an accident of car knocking down a pedestrian, who is to tell you he was driving beyond the speed limit? Is there camera or forensic expert that is able to show that the victim was rammed over by a car at 59.9km/hr or 60.1km/hr?
Anyway, in the accident, the victim died. You can say, well he is just unlucky. So, is that fair?
So, fairness and legal is never the same denominator. A fair person is harder to live than being 'legal' and not get caught. Most of us are never fair, especially to ourselves, but we are in general 'legal' in the context of civilized living. We aren't fair especially to ourselves because we always make excuses.
In other words, we can be legal - by human standard of the local custom and traditions, but never fair in the context of allowing us the shenanigans of ills and evils, eg. ego, laziness, selfishness and the wealth of double standards.
Reflection
Put in the reverse way, "unfairness isn't illegal" - which is the opposite of legal is fairness. In this reversal, 'fairness' becomes 'unfairness', 'legal' becomes 'illegal'. The positive sentence becomes reversed and negative - 'is' becomes 'is not'. The resultant - "Unfairness isn't Illegal".
So, the world is by exclusion, until proven guilty he is innocent. There is nothing illegal to be unfair, if you never get caught. The law can make this illegal, but if you never get caught, it is never punished - until proven guilty. May be only GOD will punish in real fairness in the future. But, that again is an unknown - to whom it may concern.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Agency Cost Revisited & Again!
Q.
Why my bosses are so fluent with the business, and yet I have to do the job?
A.
The below conversation happened in a meeting.
A: Why the pricing strategy could not be repeated?
The sales staff Mr A asked during the meeting. The product X has not been selling well, and the southern trend seems not likely to stop in a month or two. The competitor is slashing prices with promotions. Customers being price conscious, switched to competitor brand Y.
B: You expect everything is about price? Think, use your brain to think! Aren't you not employed to think? Can I slash your salary?
A: But... this is exactly the feedback from our customers. We are speaking based on market feedback! Our position is eroding due to competitor gaining market share!
B. No! You can do better! You can always try other methods! We have brand superiority. We are longer and stronger in the market! Your customer will need to be convinced! You have not tried enough! That is your problem, you always look for the shorter way!
A: Yes, Boss! We tried! We have been facing this issue from last year! We had a good sales because we did a promotional offer. This is currently eating into our market as our customers are still stocked up with our products. That is why they are not yet buying!
B: See, you cannot understand! You need to convince the customers! They will listen to you if you continue to highlight the quality of our product, our long term reputation, and our support for their business! This is all about customer relationship selling!
A: ... (Tongue tight).
The above scenario is very common in boardroom meeting. The issue is the bosses are always right! They are good! They have the solutions! But, wait a minute!
Are we in the wrong planet here?
If the bosses are so good and knowledgeable, why can't they go and grab the business themselves? Why they have to use their sales force to go to the field and tell the customers? Isn't it better if the business is more efficient and effective when the bosses go down to the ground and be productive to the organisation?
Putting the issues of commission and benefits aside - for bosses are better paid with incentives and commissions than the ground staff - lets discount that factor, here we concentrate only on the business model alone.
Before moving on with what will happen to the above story, I want you to witness the best form of Agency Cost in its full deployment!
The business employs people in the organization - the bosses and the field staff. The bosses were field staff before. This is likely the case although there may be exceptions, e.g. very smart 'blue eye boy' or bosses' children.
Let's remind ourselves that 'agency' means the business employs an agent to run its daily operation. The agent has his or her own priority over that of the business. This priority of the agent may not be in congruence with that of the business. The cost to pay for this defect is 'agency cost'.
So, let us come back to the above scenario.
Mr A had no choice, but to swallow the defeat. B is 'Boss' and 'bosses are always right!'.
This is an universal rule in organizations, and for that the field staff would want to be bosses one day. No doubt, there are benefits of bosses that ground level staff would never enjoy. For the very basic, they work more in the board room and less in rain and hot sun. They are paid more for thinking rather than sweating!
So, if they are so good - (that is why they are promoted, right?) - why can't they solve the market problem directly?
Apart from not doing the donkey work themselves (that is why there are upper management and lower management), the answer lies with the issue of 'today' and 'tomorrow'.
Today, in the meeting room, an idea may be an excellent idea. Tomorrow, it may not be anymore. So, when a boss has a brilliant idea today, he may not be able to carry out tomorrow. So, the issue is 'who is to take the blame?'.
In politic, this is called 'duck'. When an arrow is shooting towards you, you duck to avoid the arrow. (Duck here carries the meaning stoop or bend suddenly).
The today excellent idea when in the hand of the staff can become a lousy idea tomorrow. Whatever said, that is not the mistake of the bosses but the staff who never execute the brilliant idea well. In between, the idea, mind you, had never changed. The market may or may not have changed too. In the first place, it may not be reactive to the idea. In fact, you don't need to be a nuclear scientist to understand that there are too many variables in a market dynamic to consider!
Then, when comes to pointing fingers, the staff get fired! Not the boss.
So, you get the idea?
Reflection
Don't expect too much from your bosses, they are just agents of the business. Each and every individual in an organisation is more interested in one's priority over the firm, over their dead bodies!
Even if your boss is the owner of business, the 'agency cost' element still exists. It may not be in the form of politicking the board room, but other personal agenda might dominate the decision. For example, exploitation of staff benefits like not paying your EPF or even restrict your claims, making you slave of his dominance!
That is why 'real leaders' are never 'bosses', and 'bosses' are seldom 'real leaders'.
Why my bosses are so fluent with the business, and yet I have to do the job?
A.
The below conversation happened in a meeting.
A: Why the pricing strategy could not be repeated?
The sales staff Mr A asked during the meeting. The product X has not been selling well, and the southern trend seems not likely to stop in a month or two. The competitor is slashing prices with promotions. Customers being price conscious, switched to competitor brand Y.
B: You expect everything is about price? Think, use your brain to think! Aren't you not employed to think? Can I slash your salary?
A: But... this is exactly the feedback from our customers. We are speaking based on market feedback! Our position is eroding due to competitor gaining market share!
B. No! You can do better! You can always try other methods! We have brand superiority. We are longer and stronger in the market! Your customer will need to be convinced! You have not tried enough! That is your problem, you always look for the shorter way!
A: Yes, Boss! We tried! We have been facing this issue from last year! We had a good sales because we did a promotional offer. This is currently eating into our market as our customers are still stocked up with our products. That is why they are not yet buying!
B: See, you cannot understand! You need to convince the customers! They will listen to you if you continue to highlight the quality of our product, our long term reputation, and our support for their business! This is all about customer relationship selling!
A: ... (Tongue tight).
The above scenario is very common in boardroom meeting. The issue is the bosses are always right! They are good! They have the solutions! But, wait a minute!
Are we in the wrong planet here?
If the bosses are so good and knowledgeable, why can't they go and grab the business themselves? Why they have to use their sales force to go to the field and tell the customers? Isn't it better if the business is more efficient and effective when the bosses go down to the ground and be productive to the organisation?
Putting the issues of commission and benefits aside - for bosses are better paid with incentives and commissions than the ground staff - lets discount that factor, here we concentrate only on the business model alone.
Before moving on with what will happen to the above story, I want you to witness the best form of Agency Cost in its full deployment!
The business employs people in the organization - the bosses and the field staff. The bosses were field staff before. This is likely the case although there may be exceptions, e.g. very smart 'blue eye boy' or bosses' children.
Let's remind ourselves that 'agency' means the business employs an agent to run its daily operation. The agent has his or her own priority over that of the business. This priority of the agent may not be in congruence with that of the business. The cost to pay for this defect is 'agency cost'.
So, let us come back to the above scenario.
Mr A had no choice, but to swallow the defeat. B is 'Boss' and 'bosses are always right!'.
This is an universal rule in organizations, and for that the field staff would want to be bosses one day. No doubt, there are benefits of bosses that ground level staff would never enjoy. For the very basic, they work more in the board room and less in rain and hot sun. They are paid more for thinking rather than sweating!
So, if they are so good - (that is why they are promoted, right?) - why can't they solve the market problem directly?
Apart from not doing the donkey work themselves (that is why there are upper management and lower management), the answer lies with the issue of 'today' and 'tomorrow'.
Today, in the meeting room, an idea may be an excellent idea. Tomorrow, it may not be anymore. So, when a boss has a brilliant idea today, he may not be able to carry out tomorrow. So, the issue is 'who is to take the blame?'.
In politic, this is called 'duck'. When an arrow is shooting towards you, you duck to avoid the arrow. (Duck here carries the meaning stoop or bend suddenly).
The today excellent idea when in the hand of the staff can become a lousy idea tomorrow. Whatever said, that is not the mistake of the bosses but the staff who never execute the brilliant idea well. In between, the idea, mind you, had never changed. The market may or may not have changed too. In the first place, it may not be reactive to the idea. In fact, you don't need to be a nuclear scientist to understand that there are too many variables in a market dynamic to consider!
Then, when comes to pointing fingers, the staff get fired! Not the boss.
So, you get the idea?
Reflection
Don't expect too much from your bosses, they are just agents of the business. Each and every individual in an organisation is more interested in one's priority over the firm, over their dead bodies!
Even if your boss is the owner of business, the 'agency cost' element still exists. It may not be in the form of politicking the board room, but other personal agenda might dominate the decision. For example, exploitation of staff benefits like not paying your EPF or even restrict your claims, making you slave of his dominance!
That is why 'real leaders' are never 'bosses', and 'bosses' are seldom 'real leaders'.
Friday, August 29, 2014
吃亏 and Pareto Efficiency
Why is 吃亏 got to do with Pareto Efficiency?
Let's define Pareto Efficiency.
From Wikipedia:
Let's define Pareto Efficiency.
From Wikipedia:
Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off. The term is named after Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), an Italian economist who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution.[citation needed] The concept has applications in academic fields such as economics, engineering, and the life sciences.
Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as "Pareto efficient" or "Pareto optimal" when no further Pareto improvements can be made.
Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources: it makes no statement about equality, or the overall well-being of a society.[1][2] The notion of Pareto efficiency can also be applied to the selection of alternatives in engineering and similar fields. Each option is first assessed under multiple criteria and then a subset of options is identified with the property that no other option can categorically outperform any of its members.
So, when a market is initially profitable with limited players, e.g. oligopoly, everyone tries to win the market share. For instance, car manufacturers like Toyota, Nissan and Proton compete in the car market. Everyone tries to dominate the market, grows its dominance and establish market segment.
In such condition customers would demand special deals, in pricing, or services. Hence, 吃亏 is the carrot to lure customers. In such case, the more the customer chooses a brand, the larger the market share, and eventually its dominance. In the short run, there is still profit to make, and hence there can be strategic investments in marketing to establish special niche or brand loyalty. In doing so, the firm has to think about how to give in to the target market - thus 吃亏 as there may be special discount, doing more work, etc. Therefore, in long term as the market has more competitors, and moves towards Pareto Efficient, the winner is the brand that gave more carrots.
In the long run, the profit becomes so thin, and when the market is at Pareto Efficient, margin profit equals marginal cost. The firm merely sustain the business. Notwithstanding, at this point the bigger the market share the stronger the firm. Nonetheless, it had already given in, the so call - 吃亏.
In short, the more 吃亏, the larger the market share when the market attends Pareto Efficient.
So, when a market is initially profitable with limited players, e.g. oligopoly, everyone tries to win the market share. For instance, car manufacturers like Toyota, Nissan and Proton compete in the car market. Everyone tries to dominate the market, grows its dominance and establish market segment.
In such condition customers would demand special deals, in pricing, or services. Hence, 吃亏 is the carrot to lure customers. In such case, the more the customer chooses a brand, the larger the market share, and eventually its dominance. In the short run, there is still profit to make, and hence there can be strategic investments in marketing to establish special niche or brand loyalty. In doing so, the firm has to think about how to give in to the target market - thus 吃亏 as there may be special discount, doing more work, etc. Therefore, in long term as the market has more competitors, and moves towards Pareto Efficient, the winner is the brand that gave more carrots.
In the long run, the profit becomes so thin, and when the market is at Pareto Efficient, margin profit equals marginal cost. The firm merely sustain the business. Notwithstanding, at this point the bigger the market share the stronger the firm. Nonetheless, it had already given in, the so call - 吃亏.
In short, the more 吃亏, the larger the market share when the market attends Pareto Efficient.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Inverted Pyramid
This is a common question asked "What exactly is my boss's job other than picking on my fault?"
Actually, rephrasing the question: "Why should there a boss when I do most of the work, and get criticized?"
Or, "Why on earth the #%* with the boss?"
The below story illustrate that frustration.
Sam worked for a friend who took him in like a partner. Many moons later the business went well and they expanded. Soon they realized they needed more people so he took the initiative to lead the sales team. They expanded to twenty people where Sam became the supervisor, and his friend the major owner and proprietor.
Soon enough he elevated a good salesperson to be his assistant manager, and before he could realize, they wanted a marketing department and this assistant got promoted to Marketing Manager while Sam remained as Sales Manager.
His team went bigger and later, his friend decided that they expand to another business segment. Hence, the Marketing Manager being a lady, seemed to be suitable for the post thus being made the Business Unit Head. She decided to employ a specialist Sales Person who is also a woman, and convinced the boss (Sam's friend) to make her the Sales and Marketing Planning Manager overseeing the entire operation, including Sam's area. By now, she has elevated to the position of Business Unit Director.
So, now you realized Sam's is to report to his friend - the Boss, the Business Unit Director, the Sales and Marketing Planning Manager and he remained as Sales Manager. In fact, he graciously declined a promotion to "Senior Group Sales Manager" as he thought there was no point taking the title but doing the same job. Moreover, he was told that he has been paid beyond market rate, and there could not be anymore pay increase with the title. It was so generous for the company to 'promote' Sam even-though he declined.
In short, he still carried on with what he has been doing, and the bosses more aggressive in brain storming and did all the talking in meetings! Sometimes they even brain-stormed the whole day without having any solution to the market problems. Indeed, it is really tedious to go through all the meetings with nothing solid coming out of it!
Months and years had passed. Sam asked himself why were there Bosses when most of the work was done by him and his team? So, you see his question became a confusion as the pyramid became inverted. Why I say so?
In the old days, the army went to war with a general who led the army. The general went in front, challenging the opponent's general. You have watched the movie "Troy"? Brad Pit acted as 'Achilles' and he headed the combat, fighting the opponent.
The tip of the pyramid carried the most weight!
Now, it is inverted! The bosses push down the duties to the people below. The president, the generals and the leaders are behind giving directives and ideas, without themselves doing the chores!
Reflection
It is an Art to be in management! The role of bosses is sometimes irrelevant. It is never the leadership but the managerialship. Most of the work of the bosses is politicking in the board room or selling the ideas to the ground staff (or in blank truth - police the staff) to carry out works.
When the job becomes tougher, the bosses would employ middle managers to do all that "police the staff" job, releasing themselves from the burden. Then, these middle management will give excuses to have more middle lower managers to do the dirty jobs. This way, they can elevate themselves to higher management, in doing so releasing themselves with more freedom and quality of life (QoL).
So, if you ask what do bosses do? Well, they most likely just push on the lower level to do their jobs, in short they 'cascade down' their duties as messengers. Therefore, in real life they are just "messengers of the higher bosses"!
The only critical issue here is that there are eventually more messengers than the message. But, then again, more would be happier than not, and the company gets fatter and ineffective.
An inverted Pyramid!
And, do you think this inverted pyramid is able to sustain its balance? It will topple in no time!
That is why so many big companies eventually collapse!
Actually, rephrasing the question: "Why should there a boss when I do most of the work, and get criticized?"
Or, "Why on earth the #%* with the boss?"
The below story illustrate that frustration.
Sam worked for a friend who took him in like a partner. Many moons later the business went well and they expanded. Soon they realized they needed more people so he took the initiative to lead the sales team. They expanded to twenty people where Sam became the supervisor, and his friend the major owner and proprietor.
Soon enough he elevated a good salesperson to be his assistant manager, and before he could realize, they wanted a marketing department and this assistant got promoted to Marketing Manager while Sam remained as Sales Manager.
His team went bigger and later, his friend decided that they expand to another business segment. Hence, the Marketing Manager being a lady, seemed to be suitable for the post thus being made the Business Unit Head. She decided to employ a specialist Sales Person who is also a woman, and convinced the boss (Sam's friend) to make her the Sales and Marketing Planning Manager overseeing the entire operation, including Sam's area. By now, she has elevated to the position of Business Unit Director.
So, now you realized Sam's is to report to his friend - the Boss, the Business Unit Director, the Sales and Marketing Planning Manager and he remained as Sales Manager. In fact, he graciously declined a promotion to "Senior Group Sales Manager" as he thought there was no point taking the title but doing the same job. Moreover, he was told that he has been paid beyond market rate, and there could not be anymore pay increase with the title. It was so generous for the company to 'promote' Sam even-though he declined.
In short, he still carried on with what he has been doing, and the bosses more aggressive in brain storming and did all the talking in meetings! Sometimes they even brain-stormed the whole day without having any solution to the market problems. Indeed, it is really tedious to go through all the meetings with nothing solid coming out of it!
Months and years had passed. Sam asked himself why were there Bosses when most of the work was done by him and his team? So, you see his question became a confusion as the pyramid became inverted. Why I say so?
In the old days, the army went to war with a general who led the army. The general went in front, challenging the opponent's general. You have watched the movie "Troy"? Brad Pit acted as 'Achilles' and he headed the combat, fighting the opponent.
The tip of the pyramid carried the most weight!
Now, it is inverted! The bosses push down the duties to the people below. The president, the generals and the leaders are behind giving directives and ideas, without themselves doing the chores!
Reflection
It is an Art to be in management! The role of bosses is sometimes irrelevant. It is never the leadership but the managerialship. Most of the work of the bosses is politicking in the board room or selling the ideas to the ground staff (or in blank truth - police the staff) to carry out works.
When the job becomes tougher, the bosses would employ middle managers to do all that "police the staff" job, releasing themselves from the burden. Then, these middle management will give excuses to have more middle lower managers to do the dirty jobs. This way, they can elevate themselves to higher management, in doing so releasing themselves with more freedom and quality of life (QoL).
So, if you ask what do bosses do? Well, they most likely just push on the lower level to do their jobs, in short they 'cascade down' their duties as messengers. Therefore, in real life they are just "messengers of the higher bosses"!
The only critical issue here is that there are eventually more messengers than the message. But, then again, more would be happier than not, and the company gets fatter and ineffective.
An inverted Pyramid!
And, do you think this inverted pyramid is able to sustain its balance? It will topple in no time!
That is why so many big companies eventually collapse!
Perspectives
What is in my mind is pretty simple but it is complicated at time to write.
To make it simple, men are hypocrites! But that does not tell anything, right?
So, that is why it is complicated to write. Hence, I would like to give four statements to illustrate that.
1. If you are learned, people would label you as "Book Worm! - in Mandarin - Shu Dai Zi" (書呆子）
2. On the other hand, if you are illiterate, your description is "ignorant or in Hokkien - Bo Ta Cheh!" （沒讀書）
3. If you are in between, neither learned nor illiterate, it is "half baked or in Hokkien - Pua Che Sek" （半生熟）
4. If you just keep quiet, they would accuse you of "Bad attitude! Anti-social or even no manners! - Bo Ka Si" (沒教養)
As you can see, what ever you are, the connotation is always negative. Because, people just want to put you down.
Why?
Because people want you to feel bad! They can't stand your glory, your clever opinion, charismatic leadership or unchallenged success! They are always self-centered, or mere selfish.
Therefore, the topic of this article "Perspectives" - to different people, it is different perspectives. No matter what, the right perspective is only one's own perspective. Nobody is going to agree with your perspective unless it is also towards one's own perspective. In short, WIIIFM!
What is in it for me!
WTF! This is human behavior. Just keep your own perspectives to yourself. Do not need to say it out unless you want to invite trouble. Your enemy will make you suffer when you open your mouth!
So, only agree with others so that you last longer in the crowd. This is the best strategy. Thus, the famous Singaporean phrase "Gua bear chai! Bear Xi Gua!" - I don't know, it's not me!
Reflection
A great leader can withstand the abuse of his people. At first, nobody would agree with him until he is going to get head on with his enemies, and even be sacrificed!
Only when he withstood the test, he could have his perspectives agreed by others. Many great men went through these tests, even losing own lives until his people finally agreed to follow him. Many actually lost his perspectives at the end as he is confused by the crowd. In order to keep his fame and position, he would eventually succumb to others in trading off his own perspectives.
This is a very cruel selfish world. Human beings are so evil.
To make it simple, men are hypocrites! But that does not tell anything, right?
So, that is why it is complicated to write. Hence, I would like to give four statements to illustrate that.
1. If you are learned, people would label you as "Book Worm! - in Mandarin - Shu Dai Zi" (書呆子）
2. On the other hand, if you are illiterate, your description is "ignorant or in Hokkien - Bo Ta Cheh!" （沒讀書）
3. If you are in between, neither learned nor illiterate, it is "half baked or in Hokkien - Pua Che Sek" （半生熟）
4. If you just keep quiet, they would accuse you of "Bad attitude! Anti-social or even no manners! - Bo Ka Si" (沒教養)
As you can see, what ever you are, the connotation is always negative. Because, people just want to put you down.
Why?
Because people want you to feel bad! They can't stand your glory, your clever opinion, charismatic leadership or unchallenged success! They are always self-centered, or mere selfish.
Therefore, the topic of this article "Perspectives" - to different people, it is different perspectives. No matter what, the right perspective is only one's own perspective. Nobody is going to agree with your perspective unless it is also towards one's own perspective. In short, WIIIFM!
What is in it for me!
WTF! This is human behavior. Just keep your own perspectives to yourself. Do not need to say it out unless you want to invite trouble. Your enemy will make you suffer when you open your mouth!
So, only agree with others so that you last longer in the crowd. This is the best strategy. Thus, the famous Singaporean phrase "Gua bear chai! Bear Xi Gua!" - I don't know, it's not me!
Reflection
A great leader can withstand the abuse of his people. At first, nobody would agree with him until he is going to get head on with his enemies, and even be sacrificed!
Only when he withstood the test, he could have his perspectives agreed by others. Many great men went through these tests, even losing own lives until his people finally agreed to follow him. Many actually lost his perspectives at the end as he is confused by the crowd. In order to keep his fame and position, he would eventually succumb to others in trading off his own perspectives.
This is a very cruel selfish world. Human beings are so evil.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Pushing the Right Button!
This is like the saying "pushing the right button!". Oil the joints, getting the nod!
To someone who is in sales, the characteristics of selling is pretty vague, or you may say "Sales is a pain in the ass!".
I once knew someone who quit sales job because he thought "sales job" really never come with scope of duties. He wanted a conventional job where his function could be listed out. He did not like "pretending" which as salesperson, we do everyday, all the time.
"The weather is really hot, eh?" Pretending to break the ice.
"Isn't it hot?"
"What is so hot?"
"You lo..."
"..." The auntie smiled, "you naughty boy..."
To many, a sales job does not have straight forward job function. For example, an accounts executive is to prepare the Ledger, Journal, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, etc. A doctor is to do Blood Pressure checks, order some blood test, or do a CT Scan, give medication, etc.
So, what is a sales job? It is really something quite vague. To study market trend? I thought that is marketing! To understand users' needs and wants? That is also marketing. To negotiate and hack the price? That's again marketing - remember the 4 Ps? Place, Product, Price and Promotion. So, what is sales?
Big question, no easy answers. Wikipedia gave a simple explanation:
"A sale is the act of selling a product or service in return for money or other compensation. Signalling completion of the prospective stage, it is the beginning of an engagement between customer and vendor or the extension of that engagement."
But to a lot of salesperson, they don't really mind. Because it is more important to get sales, get the
product sold! Get bonus, get money/rewards and if at best without limits! Sales are for greedy people! It is not important what is marketing or what is sales. It is more important to "push the right button!"
For many, seeing the right prospect is the first "right button to push". So, when you understand that as a "button" then, you surely realize that there are many "buttons". A big one would be the "price button". Now, imagine that you have press all the "buttons" but there is still no "sales - order", you think back and realize that there may be still "buttons" you have not pressed, or is there?
So, this is what I mean by "Pushing the Right Button".
And, there may be unidentified "button" or those buttons you cannot push. It is for your boss to push, not you!
Therefore, at times a desperate salesperson having tried all the buttons, still cannot get the order would need to ask help from the boss (if there is). And, such is a genius move, however with its flaws. Nevertheless, asking is not begging. The ultimate decision is still with the boss and the customer. If the boss pushed and yet there is no order. It does not look good on the boss. Hence, that is sometimes avoided by the bosses. To save face, it may be done only in secretive manner nobody know about. And, when it is successful, he will claim all the credits!
On the other hand, if a political enemy is around, and aware of the scenario, this is an opportunity to do a big showdown on you! Now, that is even worse. This means you are no more good enough, your order is sabotaged/hijacked! It looks bad on you, furthermore it also sends a bad signal to your boss(es) and you may get into trouble explaining it!
Reflection
There are many buttons. Some are dynamic and some are permanent. Pushing the right button is key to success. But, there are things that are not so straight forward. Then, in such situation, it is your choice whether you would still push the button. For example, a customer given indication that a bribe would seal the deal. Do you take or decline the offer? Or is it your boss's decision? Whichever, it is your choice to decide. RIGHT or WRONG, it is never a simple matter of yes or no. It may be very blur as what is yes or no when it comes to getting a sales with some string attached.
The worse is when you do not have the button, and someone has. That someone may thus be better off than you. Or, if that button is against your ethics (like above), and someone does not think so, you just have to bite the bullet. So, the saying:
"In business, what is ethics?"
So, it is an analogy of doing the right thing at the right moment which would deliver a favourable result.
For a woman, pushing the right button may mean a little bit like "turn on" or "turn off", my apology for an extra dose of expression.
But, in business and especially in sales, pushing the right button is really a most desirable action, if not the only action needed. Why? In achieving a sales, be it a successful order, or a commitment to use in a affirmative manner. Tickling the right issue and offering a right solution resembles the pushing of the right button.
However, my article here is in a different perspective. It is because Sales is never like a structural science. Sales is dynamic and it can be very emotional like an agitated bitch!
To someone who is in sales, the characteristics of selling is pretty vague, or you may say "Sales is a pain in the ass!".
I once knew someone who quit sales job because he thought "sales job" really never come with scope of duties. He wanted a conventional job where his function could be listed out. He did not like "pretending" which as salesperson, we do everyday, all the time.
"The weather is really hot, eh?" Pretending to break the ice.
"Isn't it hot?"
"What is so hot?"
"You lo..."
"..." The auntie smiled, "you naughty boy..."
To many, a sales job does not have straight forward job function. For example, an accounts executive is to prepare the Ledger, Journal, Profit and Loss Account, Balance Sheet, etc. A doctor is to do Blood Pressure checks, order some blood test, or do a CT Scan, give medication, etc.
So, what is a sales job? It is really something quite vague. To study market trend? I thought that is marketing! To understand users' needs and wants? That is also marketing. To negotiate and hack the price? That's again marketing - remember the 4 Ps? Place, Product, Price and Promotion. So, what is sales?
Big question, no easy answers. Wikipedia gave a simple explanation:
"A sale is the act of selling a product or service in return for money or other compensation. Signalling completion of the prospective stage, it is the beginning of an engagement between customer and vendor or the extension of that engagement."
But to a lot of salesperson, they don't really mind. Because it is more important to get sales, get the
product sold! Get bonus, get money/rewards and if at best without limits! Sales are for greedy people! It is not important what is marketing or what is sales. It is more important to "push the right button!"
For many, seeing the right prospect is the first "right button to push". So, when you understand that as a "button" then, you surely realize that there are many "buttons". A big one would be the "price button". Now, imagine that you have press all the "buttons" but there is still no "sales - order", you think back and realize that there may be still "buttons" you have not pressed, or is there?
So, this is what I mean by "Pushing the Right Button".
And, there may be unidentified "button" or those buttons you cannot push. It is for your boss to push, not you!
Therefore, at times a desperate salesperson having tried all the buttons, still cannot get the order would need to ask help from the boss (if there is). And, such is a genius move, however with its flaws. Nevertheless, asking is not begging. The ultimate decision is still with the boss and the customer. If the boss pushed and yet there is no order. It does not look good on the boss. Hence, that is sometimes avoided by the bosses. To save face, it may be done only in secretive manner nobody know about. And, when it is successful, he will claim all the credits!
On the other hand, if a political enemy is around, and aware of the scenario, this is an opportunity to do a big showdown on you! Now, that is even worse. This means you are no more good enough, your order is sabotaged/hijacked! It looks bad on you, furthermore it also sends a bad signal to your boss(es) and you may get into trouble explaining it!
Reflection
There are many buttons. Some are dynamic and some are permanent. Pushing the right button is key to success. But, there are things that are not so straight forward. Then, in such situation, it is your choice whether you would still push the button. For example, a customer given indication that a bribe would seal the deal. Do you take or decline the offer? Or is it your boss's decision? Whichever, it is your choice to decide. RIGHT or WRONG, it is never a simple matter of yes or no. It may be very blur as what is yes or no when it comes to getting a sales with some string attached.
The worse is when you do not have the button, and someone has. That someone may thus be better off than you. Or, if that button is against your ethics (like above), and someone does not think so, you just have to bite the bullet. So, the saying:
"In business, what is ethics?"
Monday, April 21, 2014
Push the ball away
I wanted so much to write about this topic earlier but just did not know which subject title it should come under.
In a nutshell, the matter at hand is about a defective plan got into trouble but having to 'save face' in public.
The technique to do just that is "push the ball away".
In order to divert attention, let say you are faced with a tough question in the open, and you cannot give a convincing answer, push the ball away!
A scenario about Saturday Replacement Holiday is illustrated here. It is common for companies to grant replacement holiday on the Friday before or Monday after the Saturday which falls on a public holiday. This to compensate employees who would otherwise work longer hours everyday to get off on Saturday as compared to the 6 days work system in the old days.
So, when a Saturday happens to be a Public Holiday, a replacement day off is automatically granted. A case in real life occurred like below:
The presenter asked: "With regards to the new IT system on leave application for the Saturday Replacement Holiday, is there any question?"
The crowd, in the mid of confusion, suddenly went silent. As normally the case, in a Asian culture nobody dare to ask in public.
Then, over silence a middle age, notoriously recalcitrant employee stood up and asked:
"The old system for leave application was automatic, Saturday Public Holiday is automatically set as Friday holiday"
The presenter said: "That's right! And we now allow the flexibility to reserve that leave for future use base on your choice! Isn't that a great step forward?"
The recalcitrant employee however continued, rephrasing his question with a statement: "The new system only allows Saturday holiday to be claimed upon application. That's no more automatic and application can only be submitted for approval after the Saturday has passed, which means it cannot be utilized on the Friday before or Monday after. This means we are going backwards!"
"But, we have to ensure no abuse!" The resistance started to build up, with possible abuse of the flexibility as if Saturday Replacement can be used to off set working days for employees leaving the company. This could be true as there were people taking the whole years' leaves in early part of the year and terminating employment soon after that! In this situation, the company was especially lenient, without much scrutiny.
Hence, this concern was unfounded because nobody can claim the Saturday replacement leave unless the employee is still working during that time (after the actual day). And there is no need to restrict when to submit leave application as it is not material in this context.
To emphasize time restriction, the recalcitrant employee explained: "Furthermore, if the submission of leave application needs time for approval, why can't submission be done ahead?"
That means submission of leave application for replacement Saturday Public Holiday be ahead of the Saturday.
"Why can't approval be given for example to utilize the Saturday Public Holiday as replacement on the following Monday?" That means it could still be possible to fall back to the old system.
To prove his point, the recalcitrant employee continued: "...by doing so, it expands the allowance of the new system accommodating the flexibility of both the old and new system."
However, the presenter did not want to back down. Probably in retaliation and to keep her superior executive position. As a gesture of generosity, she offered further explanation that employees can
make use of annual leaves to take off on the following Monday or Friday ahead of the Saturday Public Holiday. And hurray! A huge contribution and credit to her innovation!
But, despite the new system having the flexibility of utilizing Saturday Replacement in the future as equivalent to "annual leave", it does not need to be restrictive in the approval process. What damage can it be if approval be given ahead of the holiday? There cannot be an abuse in the system as replacement date has to be after the Saturday which falls on a Public Holiday!
However, in order not to be seen as agreeing with the recalcitrant employee, the presenter asked the audience:
"Anyone else has the same issue?"
And, as you all know, half of the crowd was not sure how to ask, and a third did not really see the restriction being unnecessary - as always, employees just accept what is dictated upon them - and the rest were just not listening, there was no more question.
"So be it, this is an isolated issue only to you and if there is no further question we move on."
It sounded so diplomatic and understanding. This is the "pushed the ball away" tactic!
So, do you think it ever get discussed again?
No way!
As this was an "isolated issue" (because generally the smart ones are only a few and far in between) so there was no need to dwell in further and reveal the defective nature in the system.
After all, do you think anyone in the audience really care? Probably less than 10%!
As long as it does not affect you, you would not care, right? If the system is defective, let those affected sort it out themselves...
Reflection
A new system should ideally be better than the old system. The relative 'better of' does not mean it must improve economic returns, like in the above case, it results in lesser working hours and may be worse productivity. However, the operative part of the new system, be it manual or computerized has to be better of, more effective or efficient. And, all that is reference to the old system. So, for example, a new parking system with automated fee collecting machine, has to be better than a manual collection by a parking attendant. This is logically the reason why a new system has to be better and thus able to sustain that advantage over the previous system for a long time.
The above scenario has defect in the operative part of the system, although the objective in flexibility of converting replacement Saturday Holiday to Annual Leave is achieved.
Therefore, this is an issue of efficiency, and not effectiveness. The end result can be achieved, with or without a computer IT system to register the leaves/replacement holidays, but the purpose of having the new IT system to facilitate better organization efficiency is not fully utilized.
An advance application of Saturday Replacement leave can be easily done over the IT system, and it does not need to be restrictive as such.
In a nutshell, the matter at hand is about a defective plan got into trouble but having to 'save face' in public.
The technique to do just that is "push the ball away".
In order to divert attention, let say you are faced with a tough question in the open, and you cannot give a convincing answer, push the ball away!
A scenario about Saturday Replacement Holiday is illustrated here. It is common for companies to grant replacement holiday on the Friday before or Monday after the Saturday which falls on a public holiday. This to compensate employees who would otherwise work longer hours everyday to get off on Saturday as compared to the 6 days work system in the old days.
So, when a Saturday happens to be a Public Holiday, a replacement day off is automatically granted. A case in real life occurred like below:
The presenter asked: "With regards to the new IT system on leave application for the Saturday Replacement Holiday, is there any question?"
The crowd, in the mid of confusion, suddenly went silent. As normally the case, in a Asian culture nobody dare to ask in public.
Then, over silence a middle age, notoriously recalcitrant employee stood up and asked:
"The old system for leave application was automatic, Saturday Public Holiday is automatically set as Friday holiday"
The presenter said: "That's right! And we now allow the flexibility to reserve that leave for future use base on your choice! Isn't that a great step forward?"
The recalcitrant employee however continued, rephrasing his question with a statement: "The new system only allows Saturday holiday to be claimed upon application. That's no more automatic and application can only be submitted for approval after the Saturday has passed, which means it cannot be utilized on the Friday before or Monday after. This means we are going backwards!"
"But, we have to ensure no abuse!" The resistance started to build up, with possible abuse of the flexibility as if Saturday Replacement can be used to off set working days for employees leaving the company. This could be true as there were people taking the whole years' leaves in early part of the year and terminating employment soon after that! In this situation, the company was especially lenient, without much scrutiny.
Hence, this concern was unfounded because nobody can claim the Saturday replacement leave unless the employee is still working during that time (after the actual day). And there is no need to restrict when to submit leave application as it is not material in this context.
To emphasize time restriction, the recalcitrant employee explained: "Furthermore, if the submission of leave application needs time for approval, why can't submission be done ahead?"
That means submission of leave application for replacement Saturday Public Holiday be ahead of the Saturday.
"Why can't approval be given for example to utilize the Saturday Public Holiday as replacement on the following Monday?" That means it could still be possible to fall back to the old system.
To prove his point, the recalcitrant employee continued: "...by doing so, it expands the allowance of the new system accommodating the flexibility of both the old and new system."
However, the presenter did not want to back down. Probably in retaliation and to keep her superior executive position. As a gesture of generosity, she offered further explanation that employees can
make use of annual leaves to take off on the following Monday or Friday ahead of the Saturday Public Holiday. And hurray! A huge contribution and credit to her innovation!
But, despite the new system having the flexibility of utilizing Saturday Replacement in the future as equivalent to "annual leave", it does not need to be restrictive in the approval process. What damage can it be if approval be given ahead of the holiday? There cannot be an abuse in the system as replacement date has to be after the Saturday which falls on a Public Holiday!
However, in order not to be seen as agreeing with the recalcitrant employee, the presenter asked the audience:
"Anyone else has the same issue?"
And, as you all know, half of the crowd was not sure how to ask, and a third did not really see the restriction being unnecessary - as always, employees just accept what is dictated upon them - and the rest were just not listening, there was no more question.
"So be it, this is an isolated issue only to you and if there is no further question we move on."
It sounded so diplomatic and understanding. This is the "pushed the ball away" tactic!
So, do you think it ever get discussed again?
No way!
As this was an "isolated issue" (because generally the smart ones are only a few and far in between) so there was no need to dwell in further and reveal the defective nature in the system.
After all, do you think anyone in the audience really care? Probably less than 10%!
As long as it does not affect you, you would not care, right? If the system is defective, let those affected sort it out themselves...
Reflection
A new system should ideally be better than the old system. The relative 'better of' does not mean it must improve economic returns, like in the above case, it results in lesser working hours and may be worse productivity. However, the operative part of the new system, be it manual or computerized has to be better of, more effective or efficient. And, all that is reference to the old system. So, for example, a new parking system with automated fee collecting machine, has to be better than a manual collection by a parking attendant. This is logically the reason why a new system has to be better and thus able to sustain that advantage over the previous system for a long time.
The above scenario has defect in the operative part of the system, although the objective in flexibility of converting replacement Saturday Holiday to Annual Leave is achieved.
Therefore, this is an issue of efficiency, and not effectiveness. The end result can be achieved, with or without a computer IT system to register the leaves/replacement holidays, but the purpose of having the new IT system to facilitate better organization efficiency is not fully utilized.
An advance application of Saturday Replacement leave can be easily done over the IT system, and it does not need to be restrictive as such.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Who's the boss? 2
Earlier on I wrote about 'Who is the boss?" as a reminder that "bosses" are not to be 'pushed' or 'ordered - told to do so'. Such is the obstacle in management, and especially when in adhocracy management style, for example project management when a consultant engineer needs to coordinate with a consultant architect and the contractor who is the ultimate payer, a lot of soft skill is required. In such matter, nobody can tell another professional off because nobody is really the 'boss'.
Now, in this article, I want to illustrate the higher level of this phenomenon in a more real life situation. The story will also illustrate the interaction of different perspectives of various stakeholders. This interaction involves agency cost and system or operational control. And, there is also an element of stupidity in it. Again, the scenario involves a new IT (computer) system.
The finance department got this new IT system to ascertain 'clean' database. Therefore, new customers must be registered with careful screening as the objective is to avoid duplicate accounts. Why? The simple aim is to enable efficient credit control and better control of bad paymasters. However, this process requires tedious data search and thus may delay processing of orders for first time customers.
Initial cleansing took some time but the database was finally cleaned! Two months has passed, and the system ran perfectly well. The Controller started to let her hair down and coincidently, it was good news to her 10 years marriage - she finally conceived! The moment she got the urine pregnancy stick positive, the joy was immense for her husband and herself! Of course, not to say for both their parents! After all, they have almost given up trying, and hope was so remote...
Later that month, she started to have craving for laksa, so one day she went off for a late lunch. And, for just that afternoon, she had a new customer she needed to register into the system. She did not know as she did not return to office and nobody informed her as it has become sort of mundane work. Nobody bothered. After all, what was the computer system for? It was to lift off burden!
Disasters was that this being an urgent order from a remote branch in some distance outskirts. To make thing worse, it was an absolutely rare item and nobody stock this item elsewhere.
The order was sitting idle till the next day. Again, coincidently, she was scheduled to see her regular obstetrician for a check up. So, she took leave. When she returned to the office the following day, her secretary told her that some customer had been screaming over the phone the whole yesterday!
She called back the customer and got into a heated conversation as this nagging customer screamed at her without explaining the reason. What a day! Inevitably, the angry customer was really mad because he had an urgent delivery which got screwed because of this process of accounts registration. He did not know this new requirement and he did not care! It was internal issue with the finance department, not his! He refused to admit his wrong, neither was she. It was never this way previously as he had been dealing in the area for the past twenty years! But, this new IT process required fresh registration. Without an account, his order could not be billed, and thus, the item could not be shipped!
But, to the chief Controller, her priority was to have a clean database, and nothing in life was more important that the database! Opph! Sorry, not true! The most important thing now in her life was no more the job or the IT database, clean or dirty, it was her newly conceived baby (yesterday, the obstetrician said she should not get angry). Blowing over her mind, she shouted back at the customer, forgiving was never in her dictionary! Looking back, she could never have done that before! She could never raise her voice to even an ant! It must be the hormones?!
So, who is the boss?
The Customer, the chief Controller or the IT/Computer system?
Sadly, everyone looked at his/her position as 'the boss'. Actually, human being has given that role to the Computer!
Reflection
It is selfishness that blinds management. That is the single most evil element in Agency Cost. Greed springs out from selfishness. If you are not selfish, you definitely do not mind being generous to share. If you can share with others, you shall be less greedy. Why? Because you shall allow others to have more than your portion. If you do not feel less, why should you need more? Why should you be getting more than what is required?
Now, in this article, I want to illustrate the higher level of this phenomenon in a more real life situation. The story will also illustrate the interaction of different perspectives of various stakeholders. This interaction involves agency cost and system or operational control. And, there is also an element of stupidity in it. Again, the scenario involves a new IT (computer) system.
The finance department got this new IT system to ascertain 'clean' database. Therefore, new customers must be registered with careful screening as the objective is to avoid duplicate accounts. Why? The simple aim is to enable efficient credit control and better control of bad paymasters. However, this process requires tedious data search and thus may delay processing of orders for first time customers.
Initial cleansing took some time but the database was finally cleaned! Two months has passed, and the system ran perfectly well. The Controller started to let her hair down and coincidently, it was good news to her 10 years marriage - she finally conceived! The moment she got the urine pregnancy stick positive, the joy was immense for her husband and herself! Of course, not to say for both their parents! After all, they have almost given up trying, and hope was so remote...
Later that month, she started to have craving for laksa, so one day she went off for a late lunch. And, for just that afternoon, she had a new customer she needed to register into the system. She did not know as she did not return to office and nobody informed her as it has become sort of mundane work. Nobody bothered. After all, what was the computer system for? It was to lift off burden!
Disasters was that this being an urgent order from a remote branch in some distance outskirts. To make thing worse, it was an absolutely rare item and nobody stock this item elsewhere.
The order was sitting idle till the next day. Again, coincidently, she was scheduled to see her regular obstetrician for a check up. So, she took leave. When she returned to the office the following day, her secretary told her that some customer had been screaming over the phone the whole yesterday!
She called back the customer and got into a heated conversation as this nagging customer screamed at her without explaining the reason. What a day! Inevitably, the angry customer was really mad because he had an urgent delivery which got screwed because of this process of accounts registration. He did not know this new requirement and he did not care! It was internal issue with the finance department, not his! He refused to admit his wrong, neither was she. It was never this way previously as he had been dealing in the area for the past twenty years! But, this new IT process required fresh registration. Without an account, his order could not be billed, and thus, the item could not be shipped!
But, to the chief Controller, her priority was to have a clean database, and nothing in life was more important that the database! Opph! Sorry, not true! The most important thing now in her life was no more the job or the IT database, clean or dirty, it was her newly conceived baby (yesterday, the obstetrician said she should not get angry). Blowing over her mind, she shouted back at the customer, forgiving was never in her dictionary! Looking back, she could never have done that before! She could never raise her voice to even an ant! It must be the hormones?!
So, who is the boss?
The Customer, the chief Controller or the IT/Computer system?
Sadly, everyone looked at his/her position as 'the boss'. Actually, human being has given that role to the Computer!
Reflection
It is selfishness that blinds management. That is the single most evil element in Agency Cost. Greed springs out from selfishness. If you are not selfish, you definitely do not mind being generous to share. If you can share with others, you shall be less greedy. Why? Because you shall allow others to have more than your portion. If you do not feel less, why should you need more? Why should you be getting more than what is required?
Monday, April 7, 2014
Reluctant Agent 3
This is a level higher in the problem of agency cost.
Again, I would like to tell it in a story.
Samuel is a long serving excellent employee. He has been doing a great job in this company until even the bosses ask for his opinion when faced with pertinent issues.
Then, there were many other mediocre employees doing similar job like Samuel. All of them respected Sam and they have been working together fine.
One day, the company introduced a computer tracking system to monitor workflow. The regional office feels that consolidating the various branch offices would minimize wastage and improve efficiency.
So weeks passed. And Sam and others have meticulously fed in to the tracking system so that the information captured could produce a reasonable and credible outcome for the regional office.
Then, to the surprise of the senior supervisor, the regional office was very upset with the data captured.
The reason?
Very inconsistent! Some data was so plain and incomplete. A limited portion was overwhelmingly detailed and seemed reasonably analyzed with care. It was so different from the rest, and made the reader confused with the general picture. After having assessed the preliminary data, the regional office called the senior supervisor to ask about the discrepancies. However, it was difficult to account and explain the whole picture over a phone call. Inevitably, it became difficult to justify the use of only one source of input (by now you should already know it was Sam's) as a larger population was required for a convincing argument to present to the board of directors!
Due to such issue, the regional office directed a repeat of the exercise!
This being urgent, the senior supervisor called for an urgent meeting.
"All you listen up! We do this again! This time I don't want to do the shit explanations! So, just follow this example..."
The senior supervisor gave a template so that each and every employee followed a variant of the format in order to be consistent. With massaging of the figures and inputs to the tracking system, everything was only poised for success and there must be no room for failure!
And, later he called Sam to his room and blasted him! Why?
The reason being Sam was the one feeding in accurate data and making others look inconsistent!
Sometimes, acting Stupid is better than being Smart. The senior supervisor told Sam. He admitted that he can never out smart Sam, but he is the boss!
Now, that is agency cost and double standard!
Reflection
The good ones are rare. It is sometimes inevitable to sacrifice the few good generals to keep the whole army. The core reason is that people live in interaction, not solitude. Hence, there is politics, and restricted by the availability of resources, it is better seen as "fair" that everyone is average, not better of!
Again, I would like to tell it in a story.
Samuel is a long serving excellent employee. He has been doing a great job in this company until even the bosses ask for his opinion when faced with pertinent issues.
Then, there were many other mediocre employees doing similar job like Samuel. All of them respected Sam and they have been working together fine.
One day, the company introduced a computer tracking system to monitor workflow. The regional office feels that consolidating the various branch offices would minimize wastage and improve efficiency.
So weeks passed. And Sam and others have meticulously fed in to the tracking system so that the information captured could produce a reasonable and credible outcome for the regional office.
Then, to the surprise of the senior supervisor, the regional office was very upset with the data captured.
The reason?
Very inconsistent! Some data was so plain and incomplete. A limited portion was overwhelmingly detailed and seemed reasonably analyzed with care. It was so different from the rest, and made the reader confused with the general picture. After having assessed the preliminary data, the regional office called the senior supervisor to ask about the discrepancies. However, it was difficult to account and explain the whole picture over a phone call. Inevitably, it became difficult to justify the use of only one source of input (by now you should already know it was Sam's) as a larger population was required for a convincing argument to present to the board of directors!
Due to such issue, the regional office directed a repeat of the exercise!
This being urgent, the senior supervisor called for an urgent meeting.
"All you listen up! We do this again! This time I don't want to do the shit explanations! So, just follow this example..."
The senior supervisor gave a template so that each and every employee followed a variant of the format in order to be consistent. With massaging of the figures and inputs to the tracking system, everything was only poised for success and there must be no room for failure!
And, later he called Sam to his room and blasted him! Why?
The reason being Sam was the one feeding in accurate data and making others look inconsistent!
Sometimes, acting Stupid is better than being Smart. The senior supervisor told Sam. He admitted that he can never out smart Sam, but he is the boss!
Now, that is agency cost and double standard!
Reflection
The good ones are rare. It is sometimes inevitable to sacrifice the few good generals to keep the whole army. The core reason is that people live in interaction, not solitude. Hence, there is politics, and restricted by the availability of resources, it is better seen as "fair" that everyone is average, not better of!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)