《kuso英文小辭典》He’s always out and about. 他喜歡趴趴走
有些人總喜歡往外跑，要形容這種人，你可以說：He’s always out and about.，這裡的about不是「大約」，而是「到處」之意。此外也可說：He’s always running around.
A：I just called Helen’s dorm like ten times, and no one answered.
B：That’s normal. She and her roommates are always out and about.
A：我打了十通電話到阿綸的宿舍，都沒有人接。
B：這很正常。她跟她室友們都很愛到處趴趴走。
來源：台灣科技大學應用外語系助理教授黃玟君
Explaining why someone should hire you, or introduce you to a friend who is hiring, can be uncomfortable. You need to sell yourself, but you don't want to sound like a salesperson. Instead of detailing what's so great about you, tell a story that covers the following:
¡ Situation. Explain the problem or situation that you, your unit, or your company faced.
¡ Tasks. Outline what your responsibility was in solving the problem.
¡ Achievements. Make clear what you did to meet your responsibility.
¡ Results. What happened as a result of your achievements? Did revenues increase? Did customer satisfaction improve? Use specific examples to pique your audience's interest.
by Peter Bregman, Ariana Green, Gill Corkindale, David Silverman, Daisy Wademan Dowling, Nick Morgan, Jodi Glickman Brown, Boris Groysberg, Robin Abrahams
Jonathan has a new job. Just promoted from the accounting group at headquarters, he is now the controller for a regional sales unit of a consumer electronics company. He is excited about this step up and wants to build a good relationship with his new team. However, when the quarterly numbers come due, he realizes that the next quarter’s sales are being reported early to boost bonus compensation. The group manager’s silence suggests that this sort of thing has probably happened before. Having dealt with such distortion when he sat in corporate, Jonathan is fully aware of its potential to cause major damage. But this is his first time working with people who are creating the problem instead of those who are trying to fix it.
This may seem like a mundane accounting matter. But the consequences—in terms of carrying costs, distorted forecasting, compromised ethical culture, and even legal ramifications—are very serious. And except in extraordinarily well-run corporations, this kind of situation can arise easily. All managers should know how to respond constructively (indeed, learning to do so is a key piece of their professional development), and senior managers must be able to change the cultural norms that gave rise to bad judgment in the first place.
Over the past four years, I have studied the moments when people decide whether to speak up about an ethical issue, and what they say when they do. I’ve collected stories from managers at all levels, with a particular focus on the earlier years in careers and on individuals who have positive stories to tell. These stories—along with the social-psychology research on decision making—shed light on what enables people to be candid when they encounter ethical conflicts in the workplace. The insights I describe here can help younger managers raise their voices when they should and help senior managers build a strong, honest organizational culture.
Many Excuses for Silence
When a manager encounters an ethical problem, chances are he’ll also hear—or tell himself—one of four classic rationalizations for keeping silent.
It’s standard practice.
Jonathan will probably encounter this excuse when he questions his group’s quarterly sales report. Though this kind of distortion is common, that does not diminish the costs it can trigger, the fact it is unethical, or the dangerous ripple effects it can have on the business down the road.
It’s not a big deal.
When Maureen, a product-engineering manager at a computer systems company, learned that her group’s single-wipe process for reconfiguring hard drives was failing 5% of the time, she knew that some customers would end up with a reconditioned machine that still contained the previous owner’s information. But her colleagues argued that no one had complained, that it was unlikely to cause a problem anyway, and that no one wanted to take on the cost of resolving the issue in a time of budget cuts.
It’s not my responsibility.
You or your colleagues may be tempted to say that you’re too new in the job to chime in, that you don’t have the authority, or that you’re not the expert. Junior employees often get this message from others—but, I was surprised to discover, so do senior executives. For example, Denise, a senior vice president and the COO at a regional hospital, had a hunch that a trusted consultant was supplying her CEO with inaccurate financial analysis. She was afraid that, as a result, her boss would make a bad call about whether to sell the institution. This possibility weighed on her, because a sale would mean a host of problems for patients. She was new in her position, though; the CEO had brought her over from a nurse executive role, and she was still learning the ropes. She knew that the CEO believed in the sale, and she worried that her insights would not seem as credible as those of her boss’s expert adviser. Indeed, when she first broached the topic, the CEO dismissed her concerns and her right to play a role in the decision making.
I want to be loyal.
Whether you are a senior staff member or brand new to a job, it can be difficult to speak up when you see something wrong. However, not doing so can have deleterious consequences for your company, and your career. Here are the top three rationalizations for keeping silent and how to confront them:
1. It's not my job.
You don't have to be a seasoned staff member, an expert, or have formal authority to raise a flag. Doing the best thing for the company is always your job.
2. It's not a big deal.
If you're telling yourself that, it probably is a big deal. Instead of downplaying the severity of the issue, focus on trying to find a resolution.
3. It's standard practice.
Even if your company has always done it a certain way, if it's creating a problem now or in the future, challenge the status quo.
Management Tip of The Day: 3 Reasons You Should Wear a Suit
In the tech boom of the 1990s, people began to trade in their suits for business-casual khakis and sweaters; and business attire has continued to get more casual ever since. Dressing appropriately is critical to landing clients, impressing your boss, and making business interactions easier. Here are three reasons to consider going old school and wearing a suit:
Ease. There's no need to agonize over whether you're dressed up enough. Because a suit is at the top of the dress-code hierarchy, you can wear it worry free.
Professionalism. There is no doubt that wearing a suit makes you both look and feel professional. It can be a good way to raise someone's opinion of you — perhaps even your opinion of yourself.
Respect. Wearing a suit shows whomever you're meeting with that you value the meeting enough to dress up for it.
What Your Suit Says About You
9:52 AM Thursday September 24, 2009
There is no surer sign that I've crossed the invisible line into curmudgeon than this: I wear a suit to work every day and want everyone else to also. It's the second half of that statement that's clearly crotchety, but I ask you to hear me out.
Twenty years ago I started my first job at IBM. I wore grey slacks with plenty of pleats (it was the late 80s), a button down shirt, and a tie — my favorite was a red woven "sock" tie, may it rest in peace. On occasion, I would add to the mix either my father's 1940s three-piece grey suit or paisley suspenders causing me to appear to be a very young old man. (I have photos of this, but they are too terrifying to share.)
Later, I moved to New York City and got a job as a salesman. Sartorially, I visited a now-defunct temple of woolens called Moe Ginsburg's. An entire floor was devoted to American-style suits. Another to British. A third to the rakishly curved and vented Italian style. Bald men with tape measures who smelled of excelsior, cotton fluff and gin directed me to the wall of suits in my size.
I left that job for a position in England where I was going to be a techie. I therefore traveled to the Gap and, with the help of some remonstrative friends, selected khakis, blue linen shirts, and a blue blazer with gold-like buttons. My mother almost fainted. I appeared, she said, "awfully American."
When I arrived in London my boss' first remark was, "While you're waiting for your real clothes, go buy some suits." And so, off to Oxford Street, more old men, a copious amount of ale, and I was in 4-button black and grey suits and, once again, a vest.
Maybe it's because I quit my job several months ago, but lately I've been connecting with a lot of other people who have just quit or are on the verge of it. Reasons for taking the plunge vary widely, of course. But oddly, approaches to announcing the decision don't seem to be nearly as diverse. Many quitters more or less slink quietly out the door, without fully articulating why they're leaving; a smaller but still sizable number tend toward grandstanding as they exit, unable to resist the urge to preach or point the finger. Neither is a good way to end a working relationship, no matter what kinds of conditions you may be fleeing. Besides, allowing yourself the easy way out -- whether silence or soapbox -- is an awkward first foot forward on your new path. It sets the wrong tone.
Quitting is obviously not for everyone in this tough economic climate. But if you do decide to quit, what's the best way to go about it? The simple answer is with style -- but without the flair. Here's how:
1. Make clear the decision is about you, not everyone else. This is your choice, justifiable and dead-right as it may be. Take responsibility for it. Articulate your reasons rather than leave people guessing, but frame them in terms of what you need at this juncture in your life. Remember that others still need -- and want -- what your soon-to-be-former workplace offers.
2. Emphasize continuity. If you can retain a working relationship with your employer (freelancing, consulting, etc.), by all means do. Make your desire for that clear when you give your notice. If that doesn't fit what you're doing next, stay connected in other ways, such as real-world and online social settings, professional organizations, and occasional visits to your old stomping grounds. All of this can -- and should -- be on your terms, but when it comes to quitting a workplace, cold turkey is a dead fish.
3. Acknowledge how others will be affected. At the very least, your departure will mean a temporary increase in work for other people, and it might mean much more. Talking about it openly makes people less likely to stew. Of course, dwelling on it too much could suggest that you think the place will fall to pieces after you leave, and that's grandstanding of the worst sort.
4. Write about it. Life-changing decisions need to be expressed in more deliberate and thoughtful ways than resignation letters and even heartfelt discussions with coworkers permit. Allow yourself the luxury of framing what you've done in clear, considered written language, even if a spouse or a close friend is your only audience. The short-term presence of mind it gives you is alone worth it, and the long-term value is real, you'll see. My own reflection ("I Just Quit My Job ... Am I Crazy?"), written the day after I gave notice, eventually gave rise to this weekly blog.
Good luck to you, whether you're quitting or staying where you are. Your considered thoughts about it are welcome right here, for the benefit of everyone wrestling with these tough decisions.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4251
兩樣損失~放下身段，親近員工
1. 員工升任主管，改變的不只是身分，連平常受到的待遇也會發生一百八十度的大轉變。
2. 走出因地位改變而成型的繭，檢討因頭銜所衍生的效應，用腦去判斷所收到的訊息。
3. 現在固然身居要職，但我也曾是金字塔底端的一份子，今天的我和過去的我並沒有兩樣。
4. 想作個真正成功的領導人，就必須容許別的同事向你挑釁、與你爭辯、跟你作對，這也是領導人的責任。
去照照鏡子。我說真的。站到鏡子前，仔細瞧瞧你自己，鏡子裡頭那個也在盯著你看的男子或女子，正是一年、十年、甚至三十年後當你成為組織領導人時，會看到的那個人。
當然，這段時間你會得到多方面的成長與發展，例如經驗豐富了，白髮增多了，能力擴充了，興趣可能改變了，今天最在乎的事情到了明天似乎也沒那麼重要了。不過，當上董事長或執行長，並不代表你發生了激烈的蛻變，高高在上的頭銜也不會改變你這個人。
真正改變的是你的處境，當你成為高階主管的那一刻，你所得到的待遇將與從前大為不同。要做個成功的主管，秘訣之一就是能夠明察這種待遇的存在，以及他對你的影響，不能就此沖昏了頭，而必須放下身段，展現親和力。
我是在一家權責分散、多角化經營的製造公司初任業務部總裁時學到這個教訓的。那是我生平第一回當領導人，剛上任時，我常窩在辦公室裡熟悉公司的業務，不時翻閱損益平衡表、重要幹部出勤紀錄、年度績效目標這類資料。鄭再研究公司如何配置銷售人力時，有件事引起我的注意：聖路易市營業所有五名業務員，堪薩斯城營業所則有三名。這兩個城市相距只有數百英里，我實在不懂為什麼公司需要成立兩個營業所，於是猜想必然事出有因：也許是有很多使用我們產品的公司行號聚集在堪薩斯城，要不就是我們在那裡有個大客戶，需要設個連絡站。由於無法馬上找到答案，我就去請教業務部總裁。
一句話關掉一間營業所
兩星期後，我看到佈告欄貼了張業務部副總裁發布的備忘錄，宣布公司已經關閉堪薩斯城營業所，三位業務員也都離職，只有一位轉調聖路易市。當時我真是傻眼了—我以為我只不過問了個問題而已。於是我撕下備忘錄，走回辦公司找我的秘書。
「珍」我一臉茫然地問她：「這是怎麼回事？為什麼我們把堪薩斯城營業所給關了？」
「寇特說你叫他關的啊，他以為你問那個問題的意思，就是想關掉這個營業所。」
順帶一提，珍是個精明能幹、經驗豐富的專業秘書，過去二十五年協助過公司五個部門的每一位總裁。等我漸漸明白自己哪裡出了錯，才知道他說不定早就料到這結果了，於是我又問：「假設我今天打算多花點時間吃頓午飯，出門的時候隨口對你說：『不知道我辦公室的牆壁漆成綠色好不好看？』結果會怎樣？」他笑著說：「兩個鐘頭以後你一回到辦公室，就會看見牆壁已經漆成綠色，油漆工正準備把掉在地上的抹布撿起來。」
雖然有許多人表示，經濟衰退已經結束了，但經濟前景依舊讓人霧裡看花，想知道經濟是否真的在復甦嗎？ Regions Bank 首席經濟學家 Robert Allsbrook 建議，觀察看看粉紅領帶吧。
《富比士》報導，Allsbrook 表示：「大眾在充滿信心時，會選擇穿色彩鮮豔的衣服，因此當他們穿著暗色系衣服時，則表示他們心情不太好。另外，男性的領帶通常是一種指標，因為這是改變穿著的便宜方法。」
「去年夏天，甚至在雷曼兄弟 (LENMQ-US) 申請破產之前，我看到許多人都穿著有如要去參加葬禮的領帶，但現在呢，越來越多男性換上了粉紅色等花俏的樣式。」他說。
經濟學家因為有機會獲得大量的數據和先進的機器，因此能更方便掌握市場變動率如失業率、債券收益率、新住房開工率和通脹。諮詢公司 Leo J. Shapiro & Associates 的總裁 Owen Shapiro 表示，數據唯一的問題就是，民眾在新聞上看到的數據並非最即時的，因為許多數據會隨著大眾的想法而改變。
即使在理論上，股票價格應該要能反應出公司未來盈利能力，但目前卻無法從此看出任何端倪。
因此，為了掌握更多的啟示，他們找尋了其他作為經濟指標方法。總體來說，一切都已經不再惡化，但未來卻還有很長的路要走。 以下是一些經濟指標依據：
一、電信基礎建設
Dave Maddox 將所擁有的無線電塔租給電信業者 Sprint (S-US) 和 T-Mobile。每 10 個在洛杉磯和波士頓區域的無線電塔都可以提供服務給 10 家不同電信業者。今 年夏天，Dave Maddox 更成立了 4 個新基台給 4 家準備擴大營運範圍的電信業者。他說現在正是這幾年中市場最好的時刻。
二、佳士得秋季葡萄酒拍賣
佳士得美洲執行長 Heather Barnhart 解釋，在佳士得拍賣會的所有項目中，葡萄酒是最能代表經濟活動的指標。因為它與 17 世紀家具收藏的價格相比，家具價格已經不太可能變動，但葡萄酒卻並非如此。葡萄酒競標者往往會尋求低買高賣的方式。在今年 9 月，佳士得共賣出總售價 260 萬美元的葡萄酒，幾乎是去年的 2 倍。「我認為這顯示出民眾對於景氣回升充滿信心。」他說。
三、餐廳垃圾多少
Hall Company 顧問兼餐廳諮詢 Sam Firer 表示，觀察餐廳垃圾堆的大小也能成為景氣是否回升的判斷之一。美國人選擇再次外出用餐，這對經濟是一個好跡象。擁有許多知名客戶，如 Dos Caminos、Blue Water Grill和 Blue Fin 等的 Firer 說，並不是要看民眾吃了什麼，而是要知道餐廳用了哪些材料，相信在經過困難的 2008 年後，今年又將是「充滿垃圾」的一年。
「另一個好消息是，我的一名顧客 Alicart Restaurant Group 準備要在華盛頓特區開一家 6000 平方英尺的義大利餐廳，經濟真的回升了。」他說。
四、牛仔布銷售量
市調公司 NPD Group 分析師 Marshal Cohen 表示：「牛仔布提供了一個可靠的經濟判別指標」，因為牛仔褲是一種簡單的投資，且一旦景氣回升後，美國消費者的第一選擇就是牛仔褲。因此當經濟開始出現反彈時，雖然整體服裝銷售下降，但牛仔布的銷售卻表現良好。從今年 1-6 月，牛仔布的銷售跟去年同期相比成長 5.3% 至 76 億美元。
中央社台北7日電）日前辭去谷歌 (GOOGLE)全球副總裁及大中華區總裁的李開復，今天宣佈在北京清華科技園成立投資公司「創新工場」，投資方包括郭台銘領導的富士康集團和中國大陸著名的電腦公司聯想等。
李開復今天在北京舉行記者會，說明成立「創新工場」的理念。
綜合大陸媒體報導，「創新工場」未來5年將投資人民幣8億元。投資方包括劉宇環創立的中經合集團、郭台銘領導的富士康科技集團、柳傳志領導的聯想控股公司、俞敏洪領導的新東方教育科技集團、YouTube創始人陳士駿等。
李開復表示，「創新工場」是一個全方位的創業平台，旨在培育創新人才和新一代高科技企業。「創新工場」將吸引一批優秀創業者和工程師，開創出最有市場價值和商業潛力的項目，進行研發和市場營運。當項目成熟至一定程度後，自然剝離母體成為獨立子公司，直至最後上市或被收購。
「創新工場」將立足資訊產業最熱門的領域：網際網路、行動網路、雲端運算(cloud computing)，並選擇相關技術作為創業起點。
李開復對「創新工場」的前景充滿信心，他說「現在是中國崛起的時代，機會蘊藏在每一個創新的企業裡。中國經濟的復甦、中國創業板的設立、中國優秀人才的雲集、3G和雲計算時代的來臨‧‧‧這些都讓我們確信今天是做創新工場的完美時機。」
李開復表示，「從人才培養的角度，我們希望看到越來越多的中國青年在我們的幫助下實現夢想；從公司商業運作的角度，我們希望每年能夠創建出3-5個公司，輔助它們成長，甚至誕生幾個影響世界的中國品牌；從投資者的角度，我們希望在幾年之後就能夠對投資者有優厚的回報。」
郭台銘指出，「我從1991年結識開復，到今年已經18 年了。從蘋果、SGI，到微軟、谷歌，開復每加入一間新公司，我就會向他請教技術與產業發展的最新趨勢。我佩服他對科技領域的精確把握和科技改變生活的奇思創意。今天，我很高興看見開復把自己的創意變成了創新工場，我相信創新工場將會引領中國未來的網絡科技創新。我也很高興成為開復的創始投資人。」
劉宇環則指出，他從1999年開始在中國從事風險投資，儘管中國風險投資發展迅速，但缺乏相對成熟的創業環境，創業實際成功率並不高。近幾年全球資金源源不斷注入中國，但創業者缺少管理經驗、欠缺初期啟動資金、難以吸引卓越技術管理人才等諸多因素並沒有改善，開復的創新工場恰逢其時，填補了其中的空白。」
劉宇環還說，「創新工場是一個以『財』+『才』為標誌的，也是天使投資+創新產品的高度規模化、產業化的風險投資新模式。將甄選最優秀的創業理念、創業者、工程師，把每一個創業環節進行最優匹配，再提供資金、指導和後援。創新工場將成為創業資源的最佳整合者。」
劉宇環相信「創新工場」的模式能啟發整個中國風險投資行業的研發機制、人才培養機制，甚至影響整個技術類公司在中國的創新成長模式。
據指出，李開復將成為「創新工場」的董事長和最大股東，此舉完成了他要「做老大」的願望。他將會採用教練式的新方式，在選定項目後，親自出任CEO協助創業團隊，直到成熟之後再進行獨立。
The hype around the iTablet is reaching a fever pitch with the Kindle increasingly looking like yet another example of Apple roadkill. If Apple can consume 32% of the profits in the mobile phone biz in less than three years [1], it should be no problem to swallow the nascent e-reader business in one quick bite. No sooner had Jeff Bezos graced the cover of Fast Company [2] than the Kindle was pronounced dead by the digiterati (actually, it was "Kindle in Danger of Becoming E-books' Betamax [3]," according to Brett Arends in the Wall Street Journal). With competition for e-readers heating up, will Jeff be able to defend his walled garden from rivals inside and outside the category that he built?
I feel some real loyalty to the Kindle. I wrote my first Fast Company posts the same week that Amazon launched the DX and used the Kindle as a prime example of "brand-led innovation [4]." And I was recently interviewed by Lynn Neary at NPR [5] on the topic. Coming from a product design company, I am always thrilled to see a digital company try its hand at physical devices (even if Amazon did poach two of frog's best industrial designers, Wilie Loor and Chris Green, to do it). For all of its faults, the Kindle has produced that crazed you-HAVE-to-try-this-device reaction from quite a few people. So what options should Jeff consider as the forces of doom are assembling around him? Here's a look at five strategies for building a sustainable advantage in the consumer electronics market.
1. The TiVo Strategy: Own a Killer Feature
In preparation for the NPR interview I talked with a good friend who is a Kindle nut. I asked for her input on what is working and not working about the experience. She is a voracious reader, consuming several novels a month. But then, sooner or later, she would get stuck on a particular book. She would have a hard time getting fully involved, and yet she wouldn't be able to give up on it either. Weeks would go by with little progress. When she bought the Kindle she hoped it would solve her "reader's block" with 250,000 books available on-demand. Giving up on books she can't get into should be a lot easier. But she gets stuck just as often. My friend's "reader's block" seems like a nice opportunity for Amazon to innovate on the basic reading experience. The Kindle could notice that your book consumption has ground to a halt and probe for reasons. They could offer an easier way to let you off the hook--return the book for half price, for example. Or Amazon could urge you on with an incentive. Call it "The Kindle Guarantee": You'll read double the books this year or your money back. As Steve Jobs famously remarked about the Kindle, "No one reads anymore [6]." The Kindle has to sell READING, not just books. They could build (and copyright) a more intelligent "skip ahead" feature--just like Tivo allowed TV viewers to do with unwanted commercials--to keep you reading.
Amazon can stay ahead by exploring features that transform the very nature of books, from long term commitments to episodic subscriptions with a "season pass" feature. After all, the only thing keeping the book industry afloat at this point are blockbuster series like Twilight and Harry Potter. Jeff already seems to be thinking that way by serializing Stephen King as part of the Kindle launch. Graphic novels are another easier target. They lend themselves quite naturally to serialization and other non-linear reading innovations. Imagine reading a Sandman story and being able to skip back to the back story behind a particular villain or sidekick. Graphic novels and book series are huge draws with the youth market and could help establish the Kindle as an anchor product in the education market.
2. The iTunes Strategy: Own the Library
It is hard to avoid the Kindle versus iPod comparisons. The history of Apple's conquest of digital music is generally told as the story of Steve Jobs brilliance. But it is easy to forget that he got a huge assist from the very format that the iPod killed: the audio CD. Most people converted their analog music libraries to digital versions before Apple showed up, though they were stored on physical CDs instead of computer hard drives. That put Apple in a prime position to quickly digest our libraries, and before we knew it, we were locked in--iTunes customers for life.
Ever try to "rip" a book? Even Google hasn't been able to figure that one out as part of their digital library initiative. The migration to digital books will be much slower than the migration to digital music, leaving lots of time for competition and open standards to emerge and take over. It is not likely that Amazon will be able to build critical mass around their proprietary file format quickly enough to prevent a more open standard from prevailing. I wouldn't be surprised to see Amazon cave on this one.
3. The Wii Strategy: Own the Device
The new batch of Kindles are attractive products, a vast improvement over the original dud. But there is no hardware advantage to be found anywhere (unlike Apple's patented iPod scroll wheel). Touch is going to level the playing field even further within the next year. Who really wants to fumble with the cramped Kindle joystick nub? Once that happens all e-readers are going to look pretty much the same: thin, touch-based, e-ink slabs, with or without a physical keyboard in putty or...putty.
Amazon, Sony, PlasticLogic, and now Samsung will be forced to compete on minimal functional differences such as network speed (which they don't control), screen size, storage, color, and resolution. These sound a lot more like digital cameras than iPods to me. "Refresh rate" will be the next "megapixel," the obscure technical feature that is marketed to consumers in a vain attempt to make sense of a crowded field of undifferentiated devices. This will be very bad news for Amazon unless they can figure out a unique, and patentable hardware feature. One that transforms the experience of reading books the same way that the Wii remote has transformed the experience of playing video games. Given the trend towards minimal slabs across consumer electronics there is not a lot of room for innovation in hardware other than sensors and feedback. Perhaps the Kindle can be made more "cozy" through various forms of sensory feedback. It could sense the conditions in your room and radiate heat when you are staying up late to read on a cold night. The Kindle could serve as a blanket warmer or a hotplate for your coffee. It could sense when you are dozing off and play soothing music. Or wake you up with a cozy smell in the morning like fresh-brewed coffee or Cinnabon. That might make me reach for it before my smartphone as an increasing number of people are doing before breakfast [7]. I could easily envision a set of sensory themes that can be downloaded and shared from one Kindle to another. This kind of feedback would help to stimulate the sense of contemplation that David Ulin, the book editor for the L.A. Times wrote about so eloquently [8] in a recent post or the "flow state [9]" that Jeff Bezos talks about as inspiring the Kindle in the first place.
痛批馬事後才「苦民所苦」很諷刺 林火旺請辭國策顧問
2009/08/20 15:05 記者王筱君／分析報導
連續多日嚴厲批判馬劉政府救災不力的總統府國策顧問林火旺，20日上午親自證實已經辭去總統府國策顧問職務。任教台大哲學系的林火旺，最拿手的科目就是倫理學、道德推論等，經常向青年學子鼓吹「道德」是幸福的必要條件，身為馬英九重要民間智囊的他，曾任馬英九台北市長選舉競選總幹事、馬英九捐助成立的新台灣人文教基金會董事兼執行長，儘管馬系色彩明顯，但不愛拍馬屁的他，除了重砲轟馬外，也以實際行動表達自己對馬政府的失望。
「我不是國民黨的國策顧問，就像馬英九不是國民黨的總統，他現在是所有人的總統，國家是人民的，如果政府的作為違反國家利益，人民不能批評嗎？」在政論節目上爆料行政院秘書長薛香川在8日風災期間前往飯店用餐，行政院長劉兆玄在救災期間跑去染髮的林火旺，宣佈主動請辭總統府國策顧問一職。不改疾言厲行本性的林火旺，甚至直言「如果還繼續讓這些人當官，簡直就是『造孽』。」
面對螺絲鬆動的馬政府團隊，林火旺充分顯露自己「「愛之深、責之切」的性格，天蠍座的他就算連續多日痛批馬團隊，卻依舊「火」很旺。任教於台大哲學系的林火旺，每逢有機會向青年學子傳道，都會多次重申所謂「君臣、父子、夫婦、兄弟、朋友」的五倫觀，以及儒家思想的道德觀，甚至連台大新生訓練時，談的也是「品格」與「道德」等理想的實踐。
甚至在「學學文創」的網頁介紹裡，林火旺的自述也是「許多人雖然活著，但是嚴格說只是在吃飽飯等死；有些人雖然死了，現在卻還活在人們心中。」從大學時期就體會到「天堂不會自己掉下來」，美好的社會必須自己去創造的林火旺，從美國學成歸國時曾被友人問到，「台灣那麼爛，你為什麼要回去？」，而他的回答則是「就是因為很爛，才需要回去耕耘。」
學者性格濃厚的林火旺坦言，「今天台灣社會最令人感到沮喪的是有心者無力，有力者無心。」但有別於多屬犬儒主義者，林火旺認為更重要的是，「只要把所有的有心人凝聚起來，社會就會變得有力」。其實一路走來，林火旺就是金溥聰外的另一名「輔馬」大將，八年前就擔任馬英九台北市長競選總幹事的他，也是馬英九捐助成立的新台灣人文教基金會的董事兼執行長，在林眼中，馬英九「苦民所苦」的談話，雖然流露出馬善良的本質，但他也多次強調，人民現在最需要的不只是馬英九知道、也願意和他們一起受苦，而是能設法讓他們不要再苦下去了。
早在去年馬英九甫上任總統一職，人氣、聲望正高漲時，林火旺就曾投書媒體，提醒有不沾鍋性格的馬英九，強調「執政者如果用人不當、政策失誤、錯估形勢，對社會和人民造成傷害之後，再來說自己和人民『感同身受』，反而是對『善良』的一個最大諷刺。」當時林火旺還非常看好馬英九，認為他是檯面上最有可能成為「政治家」的人選。如今，面對馬團隊一再出包，林火旺失望之於也決定辭去職務，成為繼金溥聰之後，另一個離馬而去的重要精神支柱。
12:30 PM Monday August 10, 2009
by Clif Reichard
A lot of managers believe that in sales, you can't be completely honest and still be successful. Are they right?
I'll try to give you a completely honest answer. But first, consider how this pervasive belief has colored corporate activity for decades and decades. As Theodore Levitt put it in one of Harvard Business Review's best known and most quoted articles: "Selling concerns itself with the tricks and techniques of getting people to exchange their cash for your product. It is not concerned with the values that the exchange is all about."
Sales, he said in the 1960 article "Marketing Myopia," "does not...view the entire business process as consisting of a tightly integrated effort to discover, create, arouse, and satisfy customer needs. The customer is somebody 'out there' who, with proper cunning, can be separated from his or her loose change."
If managers, like Levitt, view trickery and cunning as part of the sales landscape, it's not too far down the slippery slope for them to assume that a little BS is OK in the company's overall sales strategy.
Recognizing that there is something ugly about this approach, managers sometimes choose not to peer too deeply into their firms' top-line activities lest they themselves be tied to questionable activities. They therefore allow oversight of sales activities to be a bit lax. And salespeople take that laxity, along with managers' relentless focus on making the numbers, as tacit permission to fudge the truth. We've all had experience with the results of that vicious cycle — salespeople in the auto showroom or at the mattress discounter who clearly couldn't care less about customer satisfaction.
But the basic premise behind all this is false. Complete honesty in sales and success aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, if you've gained your success with even a little bit of dishonesty, it's not really success. Be straight with the customer. Let him or her see both the upside and the downside to using your products.
If you're a manager, remember that your words and behaviors — as well as what you don't say and don't do — send a clear message to us in sales about how we should sell and how truthful we should be. If you take your top-line responsibilities seriously and encourage ethical selling, we'll be honest with customers and trust them to make the best choices for themselves — and to trust that those choices will benefit the company. Ethics needs to be the highest priority in selling, to protect the company's reputation; attracting and keeping customers comes second; and profit comes third.
But if you delegate your top-line responsibilities or avoid delving too deeply into them, we'll get the message, and we'll start honing our crafty manipulations and wily deceits.
Clif Reichard (creichar@ball.com) is a sales consultant for Ball Corporation, which he has served for 36 years in capacities including vice president of sales. He is in his 55th year selling rigid packaging substrates. This post is one in an occasional series.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4782
2:27 PM Monday July 20, 2009
Tags:Time management
Yesterday started with the best of intentions. I walked into my office in the morning with a vague sense of what I wanted to accomplish. Then I sat down, turned on my computer, and checked my email. Two hours later, after fighting several fires, solving other people's problems, and dealing with whatever happened to be thrown at me through my computer and phone, I could hardly remember what I had set out to accomplish when I first turned on my computer. I'd been ambushed. And I know better.
When I teach time management, I always start with the same question: How many of you have too much time and not enough to do in it? In ten years, no one has ever raised a hand.
That means we start every day knowing we're not going to get it all done. So how we spend our time is a key strategic decision. That's why it's a good idea to create a to do list and an ignore list. The hardest attention to focus is our own.
But even with those lists, the challenge, as always, is execution. How can you stick to a plan when so many things threaten to derail it? How can you focus on a few important things when so many things require your attention?
We need a trick.
Jack LaLanne, the fitness guru, knows all about tricks; he's famous for handcuffing himself and then swimming a mile or more while towing large boats filled with people. But he's more than just a showman. He invented several exercise machines including the ones with pulleys and weight selectors in health clubs throughout the world. And his show, The Jack LaLanne Show, was the longest running television fitness program, on the air for 34 years.
But none of that is what impresses me. He has one trick that I believe is his real secret power.
Ritual.
At the age of 94, he still spends the first two hours of his day exercising. Ninety minutes lifting weights and 30 minutes swimming or walking. Every morning. He needs to do so to achieve his goals: on his 95th birthday he plans to swim from the coast of California to Santa Catalina Island, a distance of 20 miles. Also, as he is fond of saying, "I cannot afford to die. It will ruin my image."
So he works, consistently and deliberately, toward his goals. He does the same things day in and day out. He cares about his fitness and he's built it into his schedule.
Managing our time needs to become a ritual too. Not simply a list or a vague sense of our priorities. That's not consistent or deliberate. It needs to be an ongoing process we follow no matter what to keep us focused on our priorities throughout the day.
9:41 AM Thursday May 28, 2009
by Lieutenant Colonel Diane Ryan
Tags:Leadership, Managing people, Managing teams
This post is part of our Frontline Leadership series, looking at what business leaders can learn from today's military.
The ongoing economic crisis coupled with the appearance of one scandalous headline after another describing the latest crook to run off with somebody's life savings have done much damage to Americans' ability to trust one another. While a fair amount of skepticism may be practical at times, building trust both between individuals and within organizations is absolutely critical to overall wellbeing and effectiveness. And nowhere is this requirement more important than in relationships in which the life of one person may, in specific situations, depend on the actions of another. That's why examining the processes of building and maintaining trust between military personnel in the extreme environment of combat may provide practical considerations that apply to leaders in many different contexts.
Perhaps most important is the understanding that trust must be a two-way street. While it is imperative that subordinates have trust in their leader, this will never happen without reciprocity. In a combat team, all members are mutually interdependent, meaning everyone has a specific job to do — jobs that often require a significant amount of risk to life or limb. Soldiers must trust their leader to make decisions that minimize risk where possible, and the leader must trust that soldiers will carry out their orders despite any hazards for the overall benefit of the team. Recent research by my West Point colleagues Colonels Tom Kolditz and Pat Sweeney indicates that there are several factors which influence and facilitate building this mutual trust building, including shared values, relationships that foster cooperation, and perceived competence.
For much of my own military career I took the trust-building process between myself and other soldiers, both leaders and subordinates, for granted. It was only after returning from my most recent deployment to Iraq and spending three years in the civilian world finishing my graduate degree that I began to sense that there was something special about how we cultivate trust in the Army. My first clue was when I had the occasion to ask a university administrator, himself a veteran, for a fairly substantial policy exception that I truthfully did not expect to be considered. When he granted my request without batting an eye I was taken aback. After I stammered out a surprised thank you, I exclaimed "But you don't even know me" to which he quickly replied "Oh I do know you, because I know what you stand for and I know you'll do the right thing." Our shared values served as a precursor for instantaneous mutual trust that developed and deepened over the course of our professional relationship. I recognized that this was not an isolated incident and that the values I share with my own leaders, peers and subordinates often serve as the figurative handshake upon which all subsequent trust is built.
In my experience these shared values facilitate cooperative relationships and intimacy at much faster rate in the military than in many civilian professions. There are many factors that might contribute to this phenomenon. Perhaps it's because we move around so much that we feel a sense of urgency to get to know each other more quickly. Maybe it's the time we spend together riding in dusty HMMWVs and sitting in foxholes sharing even the most mundane details of our lives in an attempt to pass the time until we get back to civilization. But mostly I think it's because we want to know almost everything about the people we potentially face death with. These deep personal relationships — that I have come to consider familial in many cases— cement the bonds of trust.
Inherent in both initial perceptions and long-term trust building is competence in the form of technical and tactical proficiency. In other words, do subordinates believe that a leader knows his or her job well enough so as not to needlessly jeopardize their safety and wellbeing? I vividly remember the pressure of leading my first convoy operation as a brand new lieutenant — ten hours through the hills and winding roads of the Bavaria. Although I exuded confidence (at least that's how I remember it), inside I was terrified of getting lost and ruining my credibility with the platoon forever — which thankfully did not occur. What I did not know at the time was that approximately 10 months later I would be executing a similar exercise across the Arabian Desert as part of Operation Desert Storm, where so much more was riding on my performance as a leader. Had I not demonstrated competence early on, my soldiers would have lacked trust in my ability to keep them from harm's way, and our overall effectiveness as a unit would have suffered tremendously.
While most businesses are not subject to circumstances similar to combat, many of the trust-building processes practiced in the military are nevertheless applicable, particularly when an organization faces crisis. Asking the following questions has the potential to facilitate trust building within your own organization:
Do I place trust in my employees as a prerequisite to earning theirs?
What are my organization/profession's shared values and culture?
Have these values been articulated within the organization to the point they are internalized and go without saying?
How much do I know about my employees and their families and how well do they know me?
What experiences can I offer to increase cooperation and familiarity in ways that are appropriate and rewarding?
And last but certainly not least, does my personal competence inspire trust in my subordinates?
Last summer Akio Toyoda disappeared from public view. In reality Toyoda, a member of the company's founding family, was very much in view if you were looking on the asphalt of a dealership in Ann Arbor, Michigan. As Michelle Maynard writes in the New York Times, Toyoda, who will become company's new president this June, was on his hands and knees inspecting the undercarriage of the new Toyota Tundra.
Unlike most of Toyota's product line, the full-size pick up was plagued with problems that forced Toyota to issue recall notices. As Maynard notes, what Toyoda was practicing was a time-honored tradition in the Toyota Production System, called "genchi genbutsu," translated as "go to the spot." That is, find out where the trouble is through first-hand observation.
Genchi genbutsu, or trouble shooting, is a practice prescribed in "lean thinking" — an approach to productivity that marries two complementary concepts: improvement and learning. The part of lean that involves trouble-shooting is something that every manager can put into practice as a means of not simply delivering continuous improvement, but of finding out what's working and what's not.
Recessions are a prime time to practice trouble shooting for two reasons. One, managers are challenged to do more with less; two, managers may have more time due to the economic slowdown. Most especially, trouble shooting can be essential to optimizing execution and so for that reason it makes good sense. To implement your own form of trouble shooting, consider three questions:
What is the real problem? Dysfunction is often apparent. For example, a product does not perform to specification. Or a process fails to deliver a consistent outcome. Diagnosing the problem requires the discipline to find the root cause. A product failure could be because of a faulty part; a process failure could result from a missed step. You do not know until you take time to investigate.
How do we fix it? Sometimes, as with product recalls, the fix can be costly. Other times it can be solved by a simple product or process redesign. Judging what it required takes an experienced hand with strong diagnostic skills, but also savvy to understand how to make the most effective solution and do it expeditiously.
Who is best suited to fix it? Putting the right people on the job is essential. Not everyone is a born problem-solver. You want to have people who like asking questions but more importantly have the facility to analyze and implement solutions. You also want people with a degree of tenacity, those who are willing to stick with it until they find a solution.
An important part of implementing trouble shooting is that it puts the manager into closer contact with people doing the work. As all experienced managers know, nothing good can happen without the input and buy-in of people doing the work. And for all the emphasis that companies put on execution, too frequently they omit the human aspect of bringing initiatives to life. By talking and listening to people on the line, or in the cubicles, managers find out what is going well and what requires improvement.
Trouble shooting by itself will not generate value but without its practice, organizations will find themselves repeating mistakes and worse failing to capitalize on lessons learned. And in times of turbulence that is something that cannot be overlooked.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4201
Whether you're a manager, a frontline worker, or an independent contractor, at one time or another you've surely had to influence, or even improve, the performance of people who don't formally report to you. Experience in all three roles has taught me some basic principles about leading without authority. These principles work even in roles where you might assume authority is a given — I've used them in my work as a teacher.
1. Let your enthusiasm for the work be contagious. Every job, project, and activity has unique fundamentals that, when respected, naturally enhance the endeavor. Engineers who truly revere math and physics, for example, tend not only to build better things but also to motivate other people (whom they often don't manage) with their love of the discipline. That doesn't mean you need to be a purist, ignoring all external motivators, to succeed in leading people you don't formally manage. But if what really drives you is the core of the challenge itself — and you let other people see that — most of them will be drawn toward your goal organically. Even in the classroom, where I am explicitly the one in charge, my passion for the subject moves students much more than any directive I give.
2. Demonstrate excellence without being cocky or solicitous of approval. Bearing the burden of someone else's ego is always a turn-off, whether the ego is already big or in need of puffing up. When an ego-driven person is your direct manager, you just hold your nose and do your best to perform in spite of the stench. But, let's face it, you're not going to waste your time following someone like that if she doesn't have real authority over you. Demanding egos have a way of hogging center stage and masking the inherent excellence of the performance. If people sense that a leader is seeking validation, the best she can hope for is muted applause. Needy leaders are rarely inspiring.
3. Don't be overinvested in outcomes. Leaders who don't have formal authority come under suspicion when they act more like a team captain than a curious scientist. Both know that outcomes matter, but the scientist subordinates the importance of outcomes as she leads quietly, whereas the captain — even one who isn't driven by ego — tends to foreground them. In essence, the effective informal leader is inquisitive rather than watchful. The distinction is subtle, and the scientist approach is not one you should try to fake. But those who truly embody it make better unofficial leaders — and better teachers, too.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4217
工商時報【譚淑珍、呂雪彗、崔慈悌／台北報導】
趨勢大師大前研一21日指出，台灣只剩1年的時間掌握大陸市場，多浪費1天的時間，就多1天的損失，必須快一點找到新的重點、新的發展模式，才能面對強大而崛起的中國與全球市場。
大前研一是受工商協進會之邀，就「全球經濟與兩岸合作展望」為題來台發表演講。他昨日並拜會總統馬英九、行政院長劉兆玄。他會見劉揆時，提出更迫切的警告表示，台商能爭取經營中國內需市場機會只剩半年，因為中國企業已不斷強大，例如中國移動市值已超過台北股票總值。
他在2003年時曾來台演講，當時他說，台灣的機會只有5年，台灣必須在5年內完成佈局，如此才不會因為中國大陸在各方面已臻成熟而不再需要台灣，如今，他說，「台灣已經沒有這個機會了」。
自從中國大陸的聯想買了IBM後、香港幾乎30％的地產都被中國大陸的企業買走後，大前研一說，「中國大陸的企業已經吸收了很多其他國家先進的經營技術與經驗」，中國大陸的經濟也邁入到第二階段的發展。
當中國大陸的企業藉由併購跨國企業吸收國際級的經驗、當中國大陸的經濟邁入第二階段的發展時，大前研一說，如果台灣還在想當年運用廉價勞工的成功經驗，「就要小心了」，如果還「想當年」，不但不會再成功，還將成為中國企業收購的對象。
他說，面對進入第二階段發展的中國大陸，台灣必須要有更好的技術、更好的行銷體系，否則是無法與歐美與日本等跨國企業相競爭，就這點來講，他說：「台灣並沒有準備好」。
大前研一建議，台灣未來的重點應是儘速進行內需市場的佈局，「歐美與日本就是這麼在做」，而台灣在進行中國大陸內需市場的佈局時，「與其單打獨鬥，不如與歐美與日本跨國企業合作」，因為，歐美與日本等跨國企業一來不懂中文，再者過去在中國大陸的投資經驗也不好，這是台灣的優勢，他們需要台灣這方面的經驗。
更重要的是，大前研一說，很多是台灣或許有，但是其他國家是絕對沒有的機會，例如基礎建設方面，像是港埠、鐵路、航太、通訊、鋼鐵等，中共當局會釋放機會給台灣，卻不會給其他國家，這是台灣的機會也是優勢。
他舉例，中國的東方航空公司因為奉命收購其他陷入財務困境的航空公司，致使東航本身也陷入困局中，而東航在資金挹拄的需求上，其他國家是沒有機會，但是台灣或許可能有機會。
台灣有其他國家不會有的機會，大前研一說，是台灣可以吸引跨國企業合作的優勢與機會，也是台灣佈局中國大陸內需市場的機會，但是這樣機會，他說，最多也只剩下1年。
Women are under-represented not only in the C-suite, but also in the high-potential leadership development programs that would help them get there, according to an analysis of 12,000 leaders in 76 countries by Development Dimensions International. Researchers found 28% more men than women in early-career high-potential programs and 50% more men in executive-level high-potential programs.
Source: Human Resource Executive
Stacking the Deck
A new study finds that it is more than the glass ceiling holding women back from leadership roles. Discrimination is less visible than previously -- but it starts so early in women's careers, that chances for advancement are slimmer. Less female involvement in high-potential programs and international assignments were cited.
By Kristen B. Frasch
Gender discrimination still prevails in organizations around the world, but is now behind closed doors, preventing women from entering executive ranks from the earliest days of their careers, according to new research from Development Dimensions International.
"Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries and Best Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed" aims to explain gender discrimination in the 21st century and debunk common myths about why women don't make it to the top management roles.
"There is nothing new about women being under-represented in the C-suite," says Ann Howard, chief scientist for Bridgeville, Pa.-based DDI, "but this research reveals what is holding back women who aspire to higher leadership positions -- that discrimination is less visible and starts so early in their career that it cripples their ability to compete with a male colleague who has had more opportunity."
The study -- a special report from DDI's Global Leadership Forecast 2008-2009, the latest in an ongoing bi-annual measurement of the impact of leadership-development initiatives worldwide -- includes data from more than 12,000 leaders from 76 countries.
It finds that women's destinies are locked in long before they reach the glass ceiling, and that female leaders are under-represented in accelerated-development programs early in their careers, which hinders their climb up the ladder.
"If they don't make it into these programs," says Howard," their chances for an executive promotion are slim, and they don't know it until it's too late."
Although the findings don't bode well for women aiming for the C-suite, they do contain one ray of hope, says Peter Cappelli, George W. Taylor Professor of Management and director of the Center for Human Resources at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
一. 關於工作與生活
我有個有趣的觀察，外企公司多的是25-35歲的白領，40歲以上的員工很少，二三十歲的外企員工是意氣風發的，但外企公司40歲附近的經理人是很尷尬的。我見過的40歲附近的外企經理人大多在一直跳槽，最後大多跳到民企，比方說，唐駿。外企員工的成功很大程度上是公司的成功，並非個人的成功，西門子的確比國美大，但並不代表西門子中國經理比國美的老闆強，甚至可以說差得很遠。而進外企的人往往並不能很早理解這一點，把自己的成功90％歸功於自己的能力，實際上，外企公司隨便換個中國區總經理並不會給業績帶來什麼了不起的影響。好了問題來了，當這些經理人40多歲了，他們的薪資要求變得很高，而他們的才能其實又不是那麼出眾，作為外企公司的老闆，你會怎麼選擇？有的是只要不高薪水的，要出位的精明強幹精力沖沛的年輕人，有的是，為什麼還要用你？
從上面這個例子，其實可以看到我們的工作軌跡，二三十歲的時候，生活的壓力還比較小，身體還比較好，上面的父母身體還好，下面又沒有孩子，不用還房貸，也沒有孩子要上大學，當個外企小白領還是很光鮮的，掙得不多也夠花了。但是人終歸要結婚生子，終歸會老，到了40歲，父母老了，要看病要吃藥，要有人看護，自己要還房貸，要過基本體面的生活，要養小孩……那個時候需要掙多少錢才夠花才重要。所以，看待工作，眼光要放遠一點，一時的誰高誰低並不能說明什麼。
從這個角度上來說，我不太贊成過於關注第一份工作的薪水，更沒有必要攀比第一份工作的薪水，這在剛剛出校園的學生中間是很常見的。正常人大概要工作 35年，這好比是一場馬拉松比賽，和真正的馬拉松比賽不同的是，這次比賽沒有職業選手，每個人都只有一次機會。要知到，有很多人甚至堅持不到終點，大多數人最後是走到終點的，只有少數人是跑過終點的，因此在剛開始的時候，去搶領先的位置並沒有太大的意義。剛進社會的時候如果進500強公司，大概能拿到3k -6k/月的工資，有些特別技術的人才可能可以到8k/月，可問題是，5年以後拿多少？估計5k-10k了不起了。起點雖然高，但增幅有限，而且，後面的年輕人追趕的壓力越來越大。
我前兩天問我的一個銷售，你會的這些東西一個新人2年就都學會了，但新人所要求的薪水卻只是你的一半，到時候，你怎麼辦？
職業生涯就像一場體育比賽，有初賽、復賽、決賽。初賽的時候大家都剛剛進社會，大多數都是實力一般的人，這時候努力一點認真一點很快就能讓人脫穎而出，於是有的人二十多歲做了經理，有的人遲些也終於贏得了初賽，三十多歲成了經理。然後是復賽，能參加復賽的都是贏得初賽的，每個人都有些能耐，在聰明才智上都不成問題，這個時候再想要勝出就不那麼容易了，單靠一點點努力和認真還不夠，要有很強的堅忍精神，要懂得靠團隊的力量，要懂得收服人心，要有長遠的眼光……
看上去贏得復賽並不容易，但，還不是那麼難。因為這個世界的規律就是給人一點成功的同時、讓人驕傲自滿，剛剛贏得初賽的人往往不知道自己贏得的僅僅是初賽，有了一點小小的成績大多數人都會驕傲自滿起來，認為自己已經懂得了全部，不需要再努力再學習了，他們會認為之所以不能再進一步已經不是自己的原因了。雖然他們仍然不好對付，但是他們沒有耐性，沒有容人的度量，更沒有清晰長遠的目光。就像一隻憤怒的鬥牛，雖然猛烈，最終是會敗的，而贏得復賽的人則象鬥牛士一樣，不急不躁，跟隨著自己的節拍，慢慢耗盡對手的耐心和體力。贏得了復賽以後，大約已經是一位很了不起的職業經理人了，當上了中小公司的總經理，大公司的副總經理，主管著每年幾千萬乃至幾億的生意。
最終的決賽來了，說實話我自己都還沒有贏得決賽，因此對於決賽的決勝因素也只能憑自己的猜測而已，這個時候的輸贏或許就像武俠小說中寫得那樣，大家都是高手，只能等待對方犯錯了，要想輕易擊敗對手是不可能的，除了使上渾身解數，還需要一點運氣和時間。世界的規律依然發揮著作用，贏得復賽的人已經不只是驕傲自滿了，他們往往剛愎自用，聽不進去別人的話，有些人的脾氣變得暴躁，心情變得浮躁，身體變得糟糕，他們最大的敵人就是他們自己，在決賽中要做的只是不被自己擊敗，等著別人被自己擊敗。這和體育比賽是一樣的，最後高手之間的比賽，就看誰失誤少誰就贏得了決賽。
二. 根源
你工作快樂麼？你的工作好麼？
有沒有覺得幹了一段時間以後工作很不開心？有沒有覺得自己入錯了行？有沒有覺得自己沒有得到應有的待遇？有沒有覺得工作像一團亂麻每天上班都是一種痛苦？有沒有很想換個工作？有沒有覺得其實現在的公司並沒有當初想像得那麼好？有沒有覺得這份工作是當初因為生存壓力而找的，實在不適合自己？你從工作中得到你想要得到的了麼？你每天開心麼？
天涯上憤怒的人很多，你有沒有想過，你為什麼不快樂？你為什麼憤怒？
