There is a method to his madness. I was hooked by Hell’s Kitchen, again, this season. For those non-addicts, Gordon Ramsey is a Michelin Star chef doing a reality show. The winner gets to be the top cook of a world-famous restaurant. This is the American Idol for cooks.

Yet this is also a serious business. Gordon Ramsey owns those restaurants and needs the best person in the kitchen. He first looks for raw talents — people who know foods and can produce expensive and highly desirable dishes. Next he needs organization skills. In a Michelin restaurant, all foods must arrive the table at the same time; something that requires military level precision. I believe he is also looking for someone who is creative and manageable too. He wants a colonel, not a general.

TV or not, what would be the best method to select such talent?

First use high-pressure basic training to weed out those who do not have the raw skills. At the same time, the candidates learn the system: station assignment, services preparation, and, most importantly, quality expectation and processes. This period ends when half of them were out.

He then turns his attention to leadership and organization skills. He also observes their drives and competitiveness. Gordon wants a field commander that can win battles.

At the end, he gives the finalists the blank canvas: create their own menu that best show-off their skills. This step is critical since restaurants must delight patrons to keep their loyalty.

At all time, the pressure is kept high for two reasons: it boost TV rating and it amplifies weakness.

By season 7, all contestants knew the rules of the game well. We can observe their strategies — against each others and Mr. Ramsey. Of course, we all are picking our favorites and predicting the outcome. I got hooked by this reality show last season. Like his restaurants, Mr. Ramsey probably needs some new ideas for the show, otherwise, I am not sure how many more seasons it will last.

Every software engineer knew, surest to his bone, how to do it right. After all, he did the first version and fixed all those bugs that came the years. He has been bothered by all those bad decisions that caused him hours of late night work. Had he had the chance to do it from scratch. It would be perfect.

Everyday, he sees the mess that is and think of the perfection that could be. Most likely there is nothing he can do, since he has jobs to do and the code belongs to the company. If he was lucky, he got to participate the project that would actually do it. That will be like opium for the addicted.

Those who studied the history of computer would be too familiar with stories like this. They would know that the first team were as smart as the second, the third, or the fouth. Re-writing is usually like growing-up. The likely outcome is most likely the same as the previous attempt.

It is the irresponsibility of the senior manager to launch a “re-do” project without knowing what exactly would have made a difference. Re-writing is not the right way to clean-up the old mess or to save maintenance costs. It is justified only when the existing architecture has truly run of steam. Even then the project must be done with extreme caution. Backward compatibility is tricky and usually demands the same kludges that caused the original mess.

Tony Hayward got fired for not knowing how to behave under crisis. (Well, it is not clear that he actually was fired. He is no longer doing the job before the oil spell happened. Rumors said he did it voluntarily to get his life back.)

I am sure he is a competent manager, no one rises up to his level, running a 265-billion dollar company, without some serious skills — crisis management not part of the repertoire.

First, get engaged. Senior management are trained to think long-term, on vision, strategy, long-term, talents, messaging, etc. The best of them delegate effectively and have processes and lieutenants to handle operational level tasks. For crisis, though, the big guy needs to set up a war room, staff it with the highest level personnel whose sole responsibility is to handle the situation, and command directly. This is necessary since the main job is to grant exceptions to rules and processes that himself set up. Otherwise, the system can only follow existing processes and that just won’t work for crisis.

Second, guide with righteousness, not laws or economy. Too many would advise him on the corporate liability or fiduciary responsibilities. The instinct would be to avoid the accountability. But the liability and damages are inevitable and only public perception can possibly be a positive influence. A transcendent stance, at morality level, can turn things around. Losses and law suits will come and can be dealt with. Money will be spent no matter what. How would history remember it?

Get emotional. The only time Tony Hayward showed any emotion was when he wanted his life back. He appeared a cold-blooded corporate man on TV and no one believed when he promised that he will fix it. Crisis require leadership. No one follows when there is no personal connection. Mr. Hayward, by not showing any emotion, proved that he was the wrong person in charge.

President Obama behaved similarly in the beginning and quickly corrected himself. Guess there are better advisors in the White House than BP headquarters.

People respond to incentives, said Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics. How does a company incentivize people to stay loyal and align with the company’s goals? A Chinese company figured this out. This unique system is probably worth a Harvard MBA case.

Selected employees may participate an aggressive profit-sharing program that yields, sometime, several times the base salary. This program is the goose that lays golden eggs: it keeps on paying out as long as the person stayed employed. But it is structured as an investment: employees must first put in their own money and wait for the returns to come later — typically 7 to 8 years for it to really blossom.

Predictably, new employees work their asses off to get invited to this program. In less than 10 years, they would be starting to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. If they manage to climb the corporate ladder, they would enter the senior rank and become really wealthy. As long as they stay employed by the company, the checks keep on coming. The top executives knew that all worthy employees want the same thing: profitability for the company. Since as long as the company makes money, everyone get rich. This works beautifully.

But it smells like a ponzi scheme. In essence, the new employees’ hardwork pays for those who are already in the club. A prospect recruit faces a last fool gambit. Can he rise to the cruising level fast enough before the pyramid collapse? The current club members, usually senior with authority, have the incentive to drive new comers harder ever.

Senior outsiders find it hard to join the company. They have proven themselves elsewhere and expect to enjoy similar compensation as their peers; not waiting years for the investment to mature. Conversely, those who worked their way up would resent the new comer that has a free ride. This system, therefore, repels external senior talents.

Like a ponzi scheme, it needs a constant infusion of new blood that, in turn, needs continued growth. This will end one day. But, for now, the last fool has not arrived yet. The bust of the bubble would be someone else’s problem.

It is easy to be the boss in a Chinese firm. In this authoritarian civilization, everyone agrees with you and seeks your approval. What you uttered becomes gospel. People quote and obey you. It is the toughest thing to be the boss in a Chinese firm. You cannot be wrong. Ever.

Chinese have perfected this authoritarian art over about 2,500 years of practicing and try-and-error. They knew that the boss can be apprehensive at times and found ways to obtain diversity, have discussions, debate: all in somewhat a, gasp, diplomatic manner. History and classic wisdoms have both warned the difficulty of those skills — yet few middle level executives have any time to practice them.

Today’s typical Chinese firm has a cadre of menacing, abusive, tycoon, and domineering junior executives, those who manage a large organization and have slightly more than a decade of industrial experience, usually at the same firm. They are competent, smart, and driven. They fought hard and won most of their battles. They have been loyal, obedient, competent, and hard-working. What they give to their boss they want it doubly with their subordinates. They are authoritarian and like it. They crave for the big glory.

Only a superior or disruptive competitor will ruin the plan. If a new and foreign power shows up, years of hardworking will go to ruin. They are too senior to start over, the jungle is ruthless, they cannot afford the risk and must eradicate those new comers before they take roots.

Street smart, decisiveness, and guerilla-like nimbleness brought them the success today. Inspirational and diplomatic skills are critical to the next phase. But time has long passed for them to learn those softer skills. They do what every cornered beasts will: kill the new comers before they are proven superior or disruptive, even at the expense of the company. What’s the point of the company thriving without self sharing the glory?

Many wrote about different leadership styles; I found Hershey and Blanchad’s theory most straight-forward:

The “telling” style is for project lead and junior managers. Executives must migrate to other styles as they progress in their career. Heeding this will make a difference to those Chinese companies aspiring to be a global force, instead of a domestic player forever.

Before Wife woke up, I started the coffee and readied for the well planned 15-minute project. I fantasized the victory breakfast, bacon and pancake, as I was fishing for the white Teflon tape. When the J-pipe, the hooked pipe that’s directly under the sink, crumpled with a slight twist of my big and heavy wrench, I sighed and threw out the pancake dream. Put everything down, came inside from the garage, and yellowpaged local plumbers. Within minutes, Wife woke up with a “what have you done this morning” look. Three plumbers would bid for this job and I expected to shell out several hundred dollars that day.

“Now that you are here,” I shook hands with the chosen plumber in jump-suit off a well-stocked van. “Would you mind fixing my leaking faucet in the bathroom too?” He shrugged and added $25 to the estimate.

He started and I came inside. Five minutes later, I heard a groan. The pipe that goes into the wall, broke off. He needed to replace it by first sawing off for a clean cut. Had I kept going, I would not have the tool. “I sure glad that I called you,” I smirked. Half an hour later, he finished the pipe job, started testing, and found water dripping off to the floor. “Your sink is leaking,” he was not pleased. It was a cast-iron sink that weigh about a ton and was as old as this 40+ year-old house. It is a back-breaking job to replace it. He called office and scheduled himself for the next day. After that, he headed the bathroom for the leaky faucet. Should be an easy $25 to make in five minutes.

Fifteen minutes later, I heard another groan. He went back to the van for his torch. “What happened?” I do not have a torch and this has become more interesting. “Your pipe twisted off. I need to cut it off and extend it. It will take about 45 minutes.” “I sure glad that I called you,” second time I said that. He smiled back. We were now buddies.

That 45-minute project became 90 when he broke my faucet. He was now quite hungry. When I handed over my credit card, he said, “You did exactly the right thing. You started early in a day and called a pro when you are in trouble. You would have got into a much bigger trouble than I am about to charge you.”

Wife actually rewarded me a great breakfast. She was glad that I took care of the problem professionally. She knew that I would have wasted more time and money had I not called.

The morale of this story? Know when to ask for help, prepare for the unexpected, and customers do not care who solved the problem, as long as it was solved.

In a simplistic way, the Net can be divided into three parts: the contents or services owners, these are the brands you know Google, Facebook, WoW, CNN, etc. They are the reasons you are on the net to begin with; next is the mystic cloud that magically connect those contents to you; last is the device you use to access those contents — that’s your smart phone, laptop, or set-top boxes.

Pundits proclaimed that the Net will have much higher bandwidth in the future. Google and Cisco both added fuel to that roaring fire of enthusiasm. It shall outpace Moore’s law, they said. Whatever speed you are connecting at today, you shall have 10 times, or even 100, more in 3 years.

Really? Who pays for the higher bandwidth?

Google does. As they are rolling out bright cables across the country, all they asked is a nominal fee not higher than your current bill. The new and fatter pipes are part of Google’s promotional budget.

Or Cisco will? They just announce the product that will change the world. (Juniper, of course, thought little of it.) It is a next generation router that handles 3 times the traffic than the previous one. As backbone operators upgrade their equipment, the pipe just got fatter. Isn’t it wonderful that technologies give us better life without us having to pay for it?

The paper-based industry pays for it. As online media replaces traditional ones, the revenue shifts. When New York Times becomes newyorktimes.com, its massive print press, truck fleet, and ad sales force disappear. The new company (probably under the old management) retains its old readership, or even larger, but with a much leaner and smaller operation. That pays for the new fat pipe.

You pay for it. Have you looked at your bills? How much you paid for your fixed-line phone, cell phone, data plan, cable TV, broad-band connection, iPhone apps, Netflix subscription, iTunes music, SecondLife spending, WoW weapons, etc.? Did you also upgrade to a faster connection? Did you even blink for the $15 Internet fee at the hotel you last checked-in? Internet is far from free to us surfers. The debate on how to monetize Internet has long ended. Consumers pay billions of dollars (and so did corporations) for their rich Net-based experiences. Oh, did you buy that digital camera by clicking through some links?

Yes, Internet will continue to expand and the bandwidth will continue to increase, like Google and Cisco have led you to believe. As for me, I am just trying to make a buck.

Recently, Kevin Smith, a well known Hollywood director, was kicked off a flight for being too fat. He was furious and started a twitter storm. His flamebuoyant communiques aroused media coverage and strong opinions everywhere. Fat people have rights too! They proclaimed. Besides, the number is on their side. The US shall have more and more fat people. Airline had better cater to their needs, lest losing their patronage.

Airline coach seats are about 18 inches wide with 32 inches “pitch” (the distance between two rows of seats). They are good for skinny and short people. (An average American woman has a hip width of 19.7 inches, and man 17.2.) Strapped in one of them is a discomfort that most people wish to get over as quickly as possible. It’s torturous if your seat-mate is nosy, noisy, smelly, messy, or, the worst, fat. Few things can bring up more terror than being squeezed against a stranger’s skin in a tight space.

---

A group of Californian students are seeking reversal of proposition 209, passed in 1996 to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. Under this law, the UC system would consider only academic merits — GPA, SAT scores, etc. — to admit students.

In 2007, Latino, black, and Native American students comprised 45.1 percent of California’s high school graduates but those groups comprised only 16.9 percent and 19.9 percent of new freshman admits at UC Berkeley and UCLA, respectively. This is an outrage and a social explosion waiting to happen.

Prior to Prop 209, UC has the infamous affirmative action system that give each ethnic group a quota in the new admission pool. The graduation rate of those disadvantaged ethnic groups were miserable. UC system wasted precious resources, and admission slots, for those academically ill-prepared students that essentially robbed the education opportunities from those who were otherwise qualified.

---

In the study of ethics, there are the concepts of just, utilitarian, fairness, and equality. It is not just to violate any individual’s rights. But utilitarian will strive for the most good for the most people, usually sacrificing the minority. Kevin Smith may have his right as a passenger, but many more passengers suffer if airlines accommodate too much for fat people, directly with discomfort or indirectly through delay, lost of available seats, or increased price from reduced capacity.

The group that sued UC called themselves “Equality by Any Means Necessary.” Equality is an economic concept of the allocation of resources. (Five dollars for you and five for me will be equal.) Fairness means all considerations be merit-based. (We each get paid by how much we contributed will be fair.) It is obvious that UC admission system has not been equal. But is it fair? To answer, ask if the admission is merit-based.

---

Ethics is a complicated subject. Topics are controversial because different approaches do not arrive at the same result. We would like things to be just and good for the most, fair and equal too. Choose your stance based on an ethic yardstick, not whether you are fat or slim, Asian or Latino.

宋江原來在梁山經營個小公司,生意蒸蒸日上. 但是他覺得前途不好,於是想被併購. 汴涼的徽宗趙佶是他的理想對象. 於是三次協商,簽訂併購合同. 梁山泊的CEO,搖身成為宋朝的個中級主管.

商業併購,十之八九,被併購的主管,在兩年內離開. 文化隔閡太大,管理理念相隔太遠.

宋江原來的假想敵是徽宗. 大公司動作慢,又官僚,其實容易競爭. 他可以在大傘下,打下自己一塊江山. 被併購後,他的對象是江南方臘,另一個中小公司. 這下就難些了.

回頭看他如何在大宋中存活呢? 宋江其實沒有大公司的資歷. 那些高俅,蔡京,身居EVP,都是在大公司打滾過來的好手. 宋江以為做事好就能被賞識,其實公司內部的人事關係,比做事實力更重要. 他自己不就是靠李師師,才搞定那併購的嗎? 轉眼,他就忘了要下工夫聯絡好高俅和蔡京,只會去打仗. 一下子,梁山的大寨主頭把金交椅,變成了只知服從,不敢抗命的大宋奴才.

宋江要是自己繼續經營梁山公司,能打下足夠的市場,與宋朝分庭抗禮嗎? 其實還有另一個大公司,金朝,也在這市場競爭. 宋江如果局勢分析好了,應該知道和宋朝併購,不如在方臘,宋,金三面經營. 也許梁山能左右世局呢?

讀史,即使是小說,也真有用.

Wise people not only heed these advices, they have been practicing them for years. You read on for more. I will try to expound on office politics.

Not before pointing out an omission: failure to deliver, the top career killer. You have a job, that job has a purpose and goals. If you screw up, nothing can help you.

So exactly is office politics? It is the understanding of how things really work and what really drive people. Modern corporations, those that survived fierce competition, do not adhere to the managerial hierarchy and budgetary discretion. They function in a much more subtle and complicated way: faster in decision making, product development, and market successes. Look beyond the structure of the organization and observe how things are done: whose opinions matter, who control the critical processes, how resources are allocated.

After that, learn what motivate those key individuals. Most of the time, the motivators are not complicated and simple to observe: sense of accomplishment, sense of right or wrong, recognition, the need to control. Look at the higher part of Maslow’s pyramid, instead of focusing on job security, pay, and career ladder. There is no better way than interacting with these people in earnest. Sometime, keen observation works equally well.

Avoiding office politics could be a career killer. Misunderstanding what it is would be a career suicide.