I just collected my college diploma not long ago so let me reminisce a little...
A few years back I was applying for a scholarship at the college I was about to transfer to. After submitting my written application, I got called for the interview session. My job was to convince the person in charge that I was worthy of it.
So I came to the hall where my fate was to be decided, and entered the cubicle when my turn was up. A young lady was waiting inside, only a few years older than me. Seeing that she had a rather friendly smile I relaxed a bit.
After asking me some questions about myself and my family background, she leveled a very direct statement at me:
"Your results are not bad, but not that great also. In view of that, why should we give you this scholarship?"
Suddenly a flash of inspiration hit me. I took a deep breath, then told her:
"My lady, your point about my results are absolutely correct. I wish I had done better as well. However, I would like to elaborate on something. May I proceed?"
She nodded assent.
"The ancient Greeks felt that education should be all-encompassing, including not only the instilling of knowledge and the refinement of intellect, but also athletics to train the physique and social activities to shape one into a citizen who can relate to others and be a pillar of our society."
She kept nodding, so I went on.
"Although my grades may not be at the very top, and I swear to make sure that from today onwards they are, I believe I can contribute to the college in other aspects. In my old college (I was a transfer student), I used to organize various activities (here I elaborated a bit more), which I viewed as an integral part of college life for all of us. If you would consider accepting me into the college with this scholarship, I'm sure I could do the same thing here for my fellow students. In line with what the Ancient Greeks expected from their best and brightest, of course."
One week later I received a letter saying I had got the full scholarship. Ancient Greeks FTW!
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
In the corporate world
In the corporate world you often have to work very very hard at things which do not really seem to be of much use: e.g. spend hours and hours late at night on Powerpoint to make things look absolutely stunning and perfect, or looking for tiny errors in Excel calculations.
One may then ask: "aren't these things adding very little value to your work?" The answer, from an objective standpoint, is yes. Your work would be 90% fine after the first 50% of time, then the remaining 50% of time is fine-tuning, checking for errors, perfecting things and so on.
So yes, working harder and harder does definitely lead to diminishing returns. Why work so damn hard then, you may ask.
The answer is that in our society today, it is more and more often winner-takes-all. Say five companies bid for a project. Only one will get it, and all the associated revenue. Or five people go for a elite job offer - only one will get it too. So every little bit that could POSSIBLY put you on top, you must do it. In the old times if you were a farmer, you harvested a little slower than your neighbors, no big deal, you got a little less crops. Now you execute a little slower than your competitors, sorry, no project for you. The revenue is zero. Same with establishing a brand, the winner in the market battle reaps gigantic gains.
Do these little things like, say, Powerpoint font size count? The real answer is we don't know. However they may, so we have to make sure everything is perfect since lots of money is riding on the line.
The outcome of a deal may well be decided not by Powerpoint font size but by the relationships the senior management has with the clients, maybe he hit the client while drunk. Or maybe we bribed the wrong guy.
But no one likes to talk about such things affecting outcomes, so in the corporate world we all pretend that it's perfection that counts and if you get a small detail wrong, sorry!
The fault is on you, even though it's probably not your fault the deal is gone.
That's why we have to spend that 50% of time getting the last 10% right.
One may then ask: "aren't these things adding very little value to your work?" The answer, from an objective standpoint, is yes. Your work would be 90% fine after the first 50% of time, then the remaining 50% of time is fine-tuning, checking for errors, perfecting things and so on.
So yes, working harder and harder does definitely lead to diminishing returns. Why work so damn hard then, you may ask.
The answer is that in our society today, it is more and more often winner-takes-all. Say five companies bid for a project. Only one will get it, and all the associated revenue. Or five people go for a elite job offer - only one will get it too. So every little bit that could POSSIBLY put you on top, you must do it. In the old times if you were a farmer, you harvested a little slower than your neighbors, no big deal, you got a little less crops. Now you execute a little slower than your competitors, sorry, no project for you. The revenue is zero. Same with establishing a brand, the winner in the market battle reaps gigantic gains.
Do these little things like, say, Powerpoint font size count? The real answer is we don't know. However they may, so we have to make sure everything is perfect since lots of money is riding on the line.
The outcome of a deal may well be decided not by Powerpoint font size but by the relationships the senior management has with the clients, maybe he hit the client while drunk. Or maybe we bribed the wrong guy.
But no one likes to talk about such things affecting outcomes, so in the corporate world we all pretend that it's perfection that counts and if you get a small detail wrong, sorry!
The fault is on you, even though it's probably not your fault the deal is gone.
That's why we have to spend that 50% of time getting the last 10% right.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
What's in a name?
Shakespeare once wrote "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet" in his immortal work Romeo and Juliet. The sentiment that line evokes is wondrous, however it is often untrue in real life. Names do matter a lot.
We see this all the time in the press; businessmen that are considered praise-worthy are called "entrepreneurs", while those whom are less well regarded are referred to as "moguls" or "barons". In the abortion debate, those who feel it should be illegal do not call themselves "pro-no-choice", they call themselves "pro-life", while those who support it being legal do not call themselves "pro-death", it's "pro-choice".
The same applies in the corporate world. Clerks are no more clerks, they are "admin professionals". Salesmen are "sales executives", repairmen are "maintenance engineers", and the list goes on. Prostitutes are now "sex workers", as I once read in a newspaper to my great delight.
Yet such use of names can lead to unforeseen and undesirable consequences too. One of my clients in a prominent company once told me that the company made a decision to convert all administrative staff to management roles, even though actual pay and powers remained the same. Once that was done, they were no longer eligible for claiming overtime. Quite an insidious move I thought. Another example is that in certain countries, electricians and other technicians are referred to as engineers, leading young people to believe that engineering is a rather "unglamorous profession". This causes fewer students to enter the engineering field, thus perhaps having a negative impact on the scientific development of the nation.
So we must be very careful when considering names and terms. I would hate to wake up one day and see beggars titled as "monetary collection specialists".
We see this all the time in the press; businessmen that are considered praise-worthy are called "entrepreneurs", while those whom are less well regarded are referred to as "moguls" or "barons". In the abortion debate, those who feel it should be illegal do not call themselves "pro-no-choice", they call themselves "pro-life", while those who support it being legal do not call themselves "pro-death", it's "pro-choice".
The same applies in the corporate world. Clerks are no more clerks, they are "admin professionals". Salesmen are "sales executives", repairmen are "maintenance engineers", and the list goes on. Prostitutes are now "sex workers", as I once read in a newspaper to my great delight.
Yet such use of names can lead to unforeseen and undesirable consequences too. One of my clients in a prominent company once told me that the company made a decision to convert all administrative staff to management roles, even though actual pay and powers remained the same. Once that was done, they were no longer eligible for claiming overtime. Quite an insidious move I thought. Another example is that in certain countries, electricians and other technicians are referred to as engineers, leading young people to believe that engineering is a rather "unglamorous profession". This causes fewer students to enter the engineering field, thus perhaps having a negative impact on the scientific development of the nation.
So we must be very careful when considering names and terms. I would hate to wake up one day and see beggars titled as "monetary collection specialists".
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Don't ask for so much pay?
When we go for interviews, the most pressing question in our mind is probably "How much are they going to pay me?" This leads to the next question "How much should I ask for?"
Personally I would ask for as much as I can get. However sometimes I hear people making the statement "you should not ask for too much, because the more pay you get the more people expect from you".
From a general point of view, I agree with this statement. A lot more is expected from a manager making ten thousand a month compared to a fresh grad making two thousand. The trouble is, this expectation is not directly linked to pay - it is linked to position.
So you really have three variables instead of two: pay, position and expectation.
Expectation and pay are both linked to position.
Coming back to our example of the interview situation, say I am interviewing for a position, and I ask for two thousand a month, while candidate B asks for two thousand five hundred for the same position. Both of us get it together with the salary we ask for.
Is my supervisor going to expect less of me compared to B because he is getting more pay?
I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.
So I think it is wiser to ask for the maximum you can get for that position.
Personally I would ask for as much as I can get. However sometimes I hear people making the statement "you should not ask for too much, because the more pay you get the more people expect from you".
From a general point of view, I agree with this statement. A lot more is expected from a manager making ten thousand a month compared to a fresh grad making two thousand. The trouble is, this expectation is not directly linked to pay - it is linked to position.
So you really have three variables instead of two: pay, position and expectation.
Expectation and pay are both linked to position.
Coming back to our example of the interview situation, say I am interviewing for a position, and I ask for two thousand a month, while candidate B asks for two thousand five hundred for the same position. Both of us get it together with the salary we ask for.
Is my supervisor going to expect less of me compared to B because he is getting more pay?
I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.
So I think it is wiser to ask for the maximum you can get for that position.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Negative Signalling
Have you seen a peahen? Peahens are female peacocks, though they bear no resemblance to their famous mate whatsoever, being small, shorttailed and a drab brown color. It's the male of the species that is far more gaudy.
One may wonder why would the peacock have such a large, colorful and cumbersome tail?. Wouldn't it make him far more vulnerable to predators? The answer is that it does! And it is precisely that fact that attracts the peahen; he can still survive in the jungle despite this handicap, so he must be a strong yet agile fellow and thus a worthy mate.
The emperor's crown serves the same purpose: he shows his status by proclaiming "Look! I can wear such a large, heavy and useless object because everyone else is here to protect me," thereby he is obviously the most important person around.
If we observe carefully, we can see this principle of "negative signalling" all around us. Look at girls who write blogs or post online. Many girls like to proclaim "I have bad temper/I'm a princess/I'm not easy to take care of." One would expect people to tend to hide their weaknesses online, yet they do not. The reason for this is simple - it is in fact a form of bragging that "despite my bad temper there is still a man (or many men) ready to take care of me and love me. I must be very desirable!"
Of course, the female of the species is not the only one using this tactic. Many men strut around proclaiming "I'm a bad boy" or "I'm a heartbreaker". This is meant to show that "despite my playboy tendencies I'm charming enough to make tons of girls fall for me". Personally I find this even more hilarious than the female version due to its lack of subtlety.
No one would ever self-proclaim a real weakness on the dating market, eg:
Men:
I'm not very smart and have zero ambition
I'm a big coward
My dick is less than two inches in length
Women:
My boobs are padded with multiple layers and I need a ton of makeup every morning to look presentable
(other variations on the same theme)
So when someone proclaims a weakness in public, it is very often negative signalling.
One may wonder why would the peacock have such a large, colorful and cumbersome tail?. Wouldn't it make him far more vulnerable to predators? The answer is that it does! And it is precisely that fact that attracts the peahen; he can still survive in the jungle despite this handicap, so he must be a strong yet agile fellow and thus a worthy mate.
The emperor's crown serves the same purpose: he shows his status by proclaiming "Look! I can wear such a large, heavy and useless object because everyone else is here to protect me," thereby he is obviously the most important person around.
If we observe carefully, we can see this principle of "negative signalling" all around us. Look at girls who write blogs or post online. Many girls like to proclaim "I have bad temper/I'm a princess/I'm not easy to take care of." One would expect people to tend to hide their weaknesses online, yet they do not. The reason for this is simple - it is in fact a form of bragging that "despite my bad temper there is still a man (or many men) ready to take care of me and love me. I must be very desirable!"
Of course, the female of the species is not the only one using this tactic. Many men strut around proclaiming "I'm a bad boy" or "I'm a heartbreaker". This is meant to show that "despite my playboy tendencies I'm charming enough to make tons of girls fall for me". Personally I find this even more hilarious than the female version due to its lack of subtlety.
No one would ever self-proclaim a real weakness on the dating market, eg:
Men:
I'm not very smart and have zero ambition
I'm a big coward
My dick is less than two inches in length
Women:
My boobs are padded with multiple layers and I need a ton of makeup every morning to look presentable
(other variations on the same theme)
So when someone proclaims a weakness in public, it is very often negative signalling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)