The good news is that you can be as brilliant as Tiger Woods, Warren Buffet, or even Mozart! The bad news is that you are probably a bit too late. But don’t despair, there is still hope.

Geoff Colvin’s book, Talent is Overrated (ISBN: 978-1591842941), repeated what Malcolm Gladwell mentioned in Outliers that there is a magical 10,000 hours for geniuses. Anyone can perform as brilliantly as a genius after about 10,000 hours of practice. In fact, many studies revealed that the majority of those prodigious geniuses — Tiger Woods, Warren Buffet, Mozart — did just that. The only difference is that they started early and so appeared to be childhood prodigies. If you trace their training history, you will find that they all achieved the “greatness” level after about 10 years’ training.

I knew one such genius myself. It was first grade. He surpassed me oh so effortlessly on every subject and clinched #1 in class ranking without a hint of studying. I was so jealous of his brilliancy. He was the darling of every mother. “Why can’t you be like him?” I wanted to hate him, but he asked me to play at his house, so I did.

As we played, his mother was tutoring his elder brother right next to us (we all live in small apartments, there wasn’t much privacy then). And I found out why he invited me. I was his shield, his excuse, and his escape. Without I being there, his mother would have drilled and tutored him at the same time — one effort for the benefit of two. Ha! He was no genius. In fact, poor guy, he was trapped by his under-performing brother so that he couldn’t play everyday as I. We became best friends and, uh, his grades declined quickly.

So, if you wish to play like Tiger, invest like Warren, or compose like Mozart, all you have to do is put in about 10,000 hours of practice. On average, that would take about 10 years. That’s the good news. The bad news is by the time you finished that 10 years, others would have done their 20 years. Where is the hope? In professional fields and business, most people don’t really get better with time and 2,000 hours of practice are enough to make you shine. If you would spend half a day every week, that’s 4 hours a week, you will be quite good in a year’s time. If you keep it up, you will be super in about 3 years. It may be hard to be a brilliant golfer, but it takes surprising less to be better than everyone around you.

Are you willing to do 4 extra hours of practicing every week for a year? I have given this advice to many people, almost 100% had their lives get in the way: family, friends, kids, entertainment, social activities, etc. In the end, no one put in those hours.

Sadly, I concluded you really don’t want to be a genius. You just want an excuse of not being one.

Life is relatively simple if you distill it down to just three basic questions.

• What do you expect of yourself? Do you want to be a billionaire, happy hippie, Olympian, world-renowned artist, movie star, family person, corporate tycoon, or what? By the time you reach 30 years old, you should already know yourself enough.
• What are you willing to sacrifice to reach that goal? Look at anyone that has been there. All of them sacrificed beyond normal: complete devotion to work for decades, zero social life, years of tremendous stress, risking all personal fortune in a gambit, moved to far away places, etc.
• What do you have that is unique, or differentiating enough from your competitors? Yes, that’s everyone in the same race you are trying to win. If you are not trying to win, or deny that you are in any race, read no more. Since your answer to first question was the end of the this quest.

All competitions are now on a global scale. It is no longer interesting to be more productive among your peers. You must be more productive than all those who will take your job in the world. I learned that after the Civil War of the US, the southern states were poor and suffered low wages for decades. Then the northern states moved their factories south to take advantage of the low labor costs. Today, workers in Beijing, ShangHai, and Bangalore see their jobs moved to ChengDu and Hyderabad; maybe tomorrow to Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. It feels daunting to face such fierce competition. We all expect things to get cheaper and better every year. Would that come without competition?

You have 6 to 10 years after college to exit from “basic training” in which you first learn how things are done normally, then the politics of the organization. Who has power, how many parties are competing, how are wars waged, how to choose sides or mentors, how not to be a casualty of those wars? Don’t do politics first. That will kill you. Now you have acquired the basics. Answer those three questions.

Find a mentor or coach. Keep in mind that your competitors have also emerged from the same “basic training.” The game only begins now.

My first real director job was at Sun Microsystems. (Although I obtained even more impressive titles earlier.) Soon after I got the job, they sent me to the director school: a 2-session, multi-day, off-site, too much food class called “Take Charge,” or something like that. (Soon after I finished, Sun cut back the costs and made it on-site and much less foods.) The message was simple: being a director is a critical turning point in the managerial career; you must be prepared else you will fail.

Lately, someone, a new director, asked a rather simple question, “Everyone is talking big ideas. Is this something I must learn to do as a director?” Come to think of it, many of you have become directors in recent years. Did you have similar questions? How come you did not ask me?

For clarification, a director is a junior executive position that has one or two layers of management structure underneath and reporting to, usually, a VP, who reports to the Boss, someone who is accountable for finance, sales, marketing, and product development. Counting down from the boss, the director is at the 3rd level.

What are the differences between a director and a senior manager?

• Think business:

  A director think what are the right things to do for the business. Frequently, this makes him appear less human that will cold-heartedly sacrifice people for profitability or other business objectives. The best directors are usually great people managers. But the position requires him to place business priority ahead of personal needs.

  Interestingly, at least for the industry that I am in, taking care of people are usually the best way to take care of the business. So for the most situations, there is no conflict. But there are times when the director will face the choice and he is expected to make the hard decisions.

• Turn paper into reality:

  Directorship is the bridge between strategy and plans. At strategic level, implementation details are usually omitted. Then, the directors are called to turn that strategy into executable plans that can be carried out. This, arguably, is the most important business function of all. All visions, strategies, and architectures are mere slidewares without solid execution skills. All plans, no matter how brilliantly made, needs people to carry them out. Without such implementation layer, no company can achieve the aspiration.

• Accomplish through peers:

  It is no longer possible for directors to complete his assignments with only resources of his own. Every jobs, every projects, need collaboration from a vast network of peers. A director is at the same time at both sides of the supplier chain, usually internal but sometime external too. Influencing skills (negotiation and persuasion) are way more important than commanding ones. This is why directors’ calendars are always booked. They are always in a meeting.

• Make rules, not just follow them:

  Directors interpret vision, strategies, and policies, most come down from above, but not all. They become operational practices, rules, or priority that guide the troops on day-to-day basis. Since those vision, strategies, and polices change frequently, directors must balance the stability of the operation with the new direction of the company. As we knew, the line between interpreting and making laws is thin and blur.

• Agree or quit:

  The phrase “disagree and commit” does not apply anymore. At this level, there are too many judgment calls and situations to handle. One must sign up to the spirit of the objective. If there is no sincerity or true belief, there can be no success.

• Make it happen:

  No bullshit, no whining, no excuses. The bucks may or may not stop here, but the accountability does. The boss does not expect to check on you. By the end of the process, he/she expects results, or your head falls.

For those aspiring middle-managers, I always tell them that directorship is a life-style change, not just a promotion. If you don’t want that life-style, you really don’t want the job.

The July, 2011, issue of CACM has this interesting article on the Non-Myths of Programming. If you are a member, don’t skip.

Both kids study science and engineering, neither of them ventured into software or computer. I have curiously inquired the reasons and they, for large parts, matched these non-myths.

• Non-Myth #1: Programming is Boring
• Non-Myth #2: You Spend Most of Your Working Life in Front of a Computer Screen
• Non-Myth #3: You Have to Work Long Hours
• Non-Myth #4: Programming Is Asocial
• Non-Myth #5: Programming Is Only for Those Who Think Logically
• Non-Myth #6: Software Is Being Outsourced
• Non-Myth #7. Programming Is a Well-Paid Profession

Dr. Mordechai (Moti) Ben-Ari, the author, stated perfectly. These, except for #2 and #7, are true for practically all professions: legal, medicine, arts, or sports. To excel in any of these, one must specialize and practice for years with such devotion that the practitioner will become asocial. And honestly, which jobs you know do not require staring at the computer screen for long time and not threatened to be outsourced?

This brings back to #7. The fact is software engineering remains to be a very well-paid job for people with average aptitude in this field, compared to, say, arts and sport. An average professional artist or athlete makes very little, although the top talents earn handsomely. Yes, arts and sports are probably immune from being outsourced, but count the number of them that are not working the second job to make a living.

The young generation, and there is always one such thing, wants stimulating, challenging, well-paying jobs that are fun and with lots of opportunities to hang out with friends. They saw the most successful ones: President Obama, Oscar winners, gold medalists, world champions, platinum album sellers, etc. and want to be just like that. Unlike those days of Bill Joy and Marc Andreessen, software has become mundane. No longer can kids in a garage change the world just like that. It is easier, and funner, to compete for American Idols.

And we taught them, “If you set your mind to it, there is nothing you cannot achieve.” For example, there is nothing wrong to practice basketball, instead of studying, for the dream of making NBA draft. Only that some paths are perilously difficult and, statistically, break too way too many spirits and ruined too many lives.

Sigh… Pragmatism kills dreams.

This is a managerial topic, as in how to get your team to work more effectively.

Early in the managerial career, the training is about securing resources, practicing planning skills, and keeping things organized. On any day, I would be happy to take a solid manager who knew how to do these. In fact, many spent their entire managerial career honing their skills on them. These are the people who knew exactly how to do thing right:

Let’s have a through requirements written down, design it properly, think through all ramifications, reviewed it with domain experts, implement it with high disciplines, QA the hell out of it, and not ship it until we are absolutely certain that all requirements are met.

Sadly, they also spent years hoping that one day he or she get to do a project with all of the above. He or she will die a happy person knowing The Perfect Project really exists. Most of them retired sad, defeated, and sour. There is always something wrong the prevented them to do the project right. Someone would screw up the whole thing. “Had that guy give me one extra month, I would have… could have… should have…” Regret. It bites.

Face it. Everyone has learned the lessons from IBM on how to do System/360. You compete with hundreds who have also read the Mythical Man-Month. They knew how to do things that was taught. If you are merely doing the same, you stand no chance winning. You might as well just pack your bags and go home. Today, to win, you must be faster, cheaper, and better. In fact, you need to do that just to survive.

It is about taking the right risks and synchronize the whole team behind the choice. Once you have done that, you created an unique, and hopefully effective, competitive edge against others (since they chose other risks).

So what are the risks?

• Commercial failure: lost sales, missed IPO window, reduced income.
• Regrets: that you made the wrong choice.
• Damaged personality credibility: you did not delivered as you promised.
• Damaged legacy (resume factors): that you wouldn’t have anything to show for and couldn’t land your next dream job.
• Lost of peer respect: that everyone would know that you skewed up.

And fear is the emotion reacting to these risks. It cannot be reasoned with. The only way we human being know about dealing with emotion is to talk about it. The reaction to fear drive people to make different choices. Each member of the team would optimize differently. Although the project will still get done, since you are a good managers, it will not win, since other teams would have done it the same.

The most effective way to combat fear is to gain control over risks. A slightly less effective way is to understanding it. So in the “talking sessions,” strategize and discuss each risk and find a way to accept them, mange them, and, at least, understanding them. It sounds like a regular planning session and should be organized as one. As the facilitator, you must pay attention to the fear part, not the risk management part and bring them out to the open.

Final note. This whole process begins with yourself and your boss. Are you aligned with your risk appetite?

The mentality of Not-Invented-Here will kill any technology company these days.
I was floored with this marketing material from a technology company. I masked out relevant names.

This area concerns ownership of the components that comprise a product. The need to license one or modules carries an array of potential implications and dependencies, from incomplete integration and sub-optimal performance to delayed updates and lack of in-house research and knowledge for a specific area, which could lead to lower effectiveness – such as the inability to thoroughly address blended functions.

The Company’s product technology has no dependencies on outside components. The result is a completely unified and highly optimized solution architecture that maximizes performance and enables the highest level of effectiveness. Furthermore, Company maintains its own, extensive intelligence network, as well as its own research lab staffed by a world-renowned security research team. The result is the ability to provide thorough and timely intelligence and content updates, thereby enabling organizations to efficiently and effectively handle the rapidly changing conditions characteristic of today’s computing environments.

In comparison. With the exception of one, all other competitors license/obtain one or more components of their solution from a third party. As discussed above, this arrangement carries with it the significant potential for negative side effects, from poor performance to stale content and feature sets.

A public statement like this should scare both customers and investors away. Any company, any product, in the world must leverage a supply chain to provide components that are simply impractical to produce in-house. Customers care if products can solve their problems with reasonable costs. If company A license others’ technologies and produce the products cheaper and faster, it will always win over company B that insisted on doing everything in-house.

The argument on quality is really 100% wrong. Would you have a higher quality health care if you treat your own ailments? The clear advantage of industrialization is specialization. A technology is almost always better when produced by companies specialized in that. In fact, that’s why anyone buy any product to begin with: they don’t have the means to solve the problem themselves economically or effectively. By extension, why would anyone claim a product is of higher quality if everything is produced in-house?

Management are suckers for Change Management techniques. We have been trained and brainwashed that the most important job we have is to be an agent for changes. Then there are consultants, Exec MBA programs, short courses, and books on this very subject: all shouting that change management is hard. In fact, there are statistics proving the over-whelming failure rate. This feels like the great American weight-loss initiative: a goal that will be certain to suck up lots of money and guaranteed to fail.

Is Change Management really the most important task for a manager? No. The far and beyond #1 job for any manager is to deliver to the planned objectives. By definition, a manager has a pool of resources under his or her command. Then there are those goals he or she must achieve. The goals will be unreasonable and beyond the capacity of his or her team. (Why bother if otherwise?) Those who did not fail get to advance to the next level. Yes, more daunting objectives with even thinner resources.

This is life, like everyone else. If you have sufficient resources, talents, and time, of course you can do it. The winning and losing are decided when you don’t. Hmm, if you don’t, how would you do it?

Think about it. There is really only one answer.

You need to do it differently: not by the book, not after you have secured the resources, and not by the proven and true methodology. Everybody knew how to do it that way. If you do the same, you be mediocre. You may not lose, but you will not win. That’s why Change Management becomes job #1.

This book gives some practical tips, and some not so practical ones. I recommend it as among the first books a new manager will read on change management. If you are already a seasoned one, skip it.

In the old days, software creation was intensively geeky. Myriad of minutiae required total concentration and focus to keep track in one’s head. One mishaps and the whole program crashes. It takes days to find that proverbial needle in the haystack: sometime a misplaced punctual mark or an extra character, else a subtle inconsistency in the logic or data format. End of the work day meant blurry eyes, sore shoulders, stiff neck, hunger, and mental exhaustion.

The concentration meant isolation: close the door, turn off the light, unplug the phone, get comfortable with the chair, and just submerge yourself into the code. A good software engineer will lose social skills and touch to the reality. As time progresses, the most talented became the most eccentric. We, the normal, tolerate them as we do weird scientists. They are the necessities of the modern society, but normal people need not play with them.

This changed around the Internet bubble time (1998~2001?), then again during the out-source craze (2004~2008). Heavy duty algorithm development is still cool, but large sum of money can be made by putting together a program with readily made modules and give it a nice skin to appeal to the mass. New tools enable amateurs to create software that looked professional, although with a crude engine. New generation of script languages encourage applets that glue together a system with many simple and single-function small programs that are easily doable by people with little or no formal programming trainings. Soon, some very serious software, such as the software behind this blog site, were done with one of those scripting languages.

Of course, those brilliant algorithm developers are still highly valued and respected. But the mainstream software engineers now thrive on communication and coordination skills and agility. They need to reach out to someone halfway across the world to understand how to interface with a module to get things done. If they try to create that module themselves, they will find the company losing the market, even with arguably better technologies.

Strangely, this blurs the lines between software engineer, engineering manager, and program manager. All of the sudden, everyone in this industry must be cross-trained for all three disciplines.

The famed Netflix competition add another twist to this topic. World-wide talents, one sponsored by AT&T, tried many approaches. It was not possible for Netflix to recruit those talents of the winning team with traditional in-house development. The entire effort would have costed Netflix far more than the $1m prize money. And the winning team demonstrated that global communication and coordination was no less important than their raw algorithm development skills.

Nerds these days are sociable and smart. These traits also give them high earning power. Isn’t that just cool!

Clayton Christensen’s book, in 2003, made the word disruptor into every managers’ vocabulary. Innovator’s Dilemma depicted the inability of a successful company to escape its own trap. The very things that made it successful are exactly the ones that will fail it. Since the company will be so well tuned to sustain its successful trajectory, all rational decisions and on-going optimizations will lead to its rigidity and eventual demise. That book gave thousands of smaller companies hope to win over the larger competitors: all they need to come up is a disruptor.

Honestly, for a couple of years, if you don’t utter the words disruption, disruptor, or disruptive technologies in an executive presentation, it is as if you picked the wrong dress code.

This is the, less popular, companion book. Many concepts are the same, but this one gave more details on how to attack with or defend against disruptions.

To summarize, Mr. Christensen presented two disruptive approaches:

• When the current product or technology have over-served the customers, the value shifts to the component suppliers and the disruption will be the integrators of modular components. Think how Dell, Intel, and Microsoft disrupted IBM and DEC.
• There are customers who cannot afford the standard products or technologies. In that case, an inferior offering can capture those non-consumers whose only other option is not having anything at all. This kind of disruption will gradually eat up the current leaders. Think Sony beating out vacuum tube stereo manufacturers.

I found the definition of capability interesting. Mr. Christensen defined it with three elements: resources, processes, and values. He observed that different companies have varied difficulty changing when their capability have different mixes.

At the end, I was less inspired than his first book. It is still a good refresher and thought provoker.

This is a common tale but true.

There was a brief moment of panic and disbelief when I found no wallet in the familiar back pocket. (Most men habitually check their pockets. They pat for the keys, cell phone, wallet, or what-not with a routine.) A search yielded nothing. I approached the United Airline counter for help. This nice Japanese woman immediately went to the plane. Fifteen minutes later, she came back empty-handed. I went back waiting for my connecting flight, powerless and frustrated in Narita Airport.

Five hours later, I arrived Taipei with no money or credit what-so-ever. I considered my options:

• I could call the credit card company and asked for emergency cash.
• Maybe the hotel concierge will lend me some?
• Do I know anyone in this city to borrow from?
• Would someone from US wire me money at this hour?
• Would my bank wire me some money?

In Taipei hotel room, I made a list of its contents: driver license, credit cards, insurance card, etc. Jet-lagged and sleep deprived, I started the tedious process of finding the phone numbers and reporting the lost. I stopped after three cards and went to sleep, depressed.

Losing several hundred dollars was the least of my concerns. I actually did not even know how many credit cards and debit cards were there. Although I am reasonably protected, canceling each of them will not be fun. I also needed to get a new driver’s license and other IDs. Worst, I faced the risk of becoming the next victim of identify theft. That experience can be hell and damages take years to repair.

Next day, I got this email message from my admin, “Someone called and claimed that he has your wallet. I think it is a fraud, but would check with you anyway. Did you lose it?” “Oh, YES!”

It turned out an Diana DeGette, US congress woman, found it in the seat pocket on her way from D.C. to Denver. She gave the wallet to a Tommy Walker, her assistant, who sent me back the wallet, well packed and with everything intact.

Yay. Happy ending. Next time, I will carry a spare credit card separately.