我好奇故我在

這一篇文章很有意思，以下這段話是女CEO給年職業婦女的建議：
A lot of women are afraid that as they move up and take on more responsibility, it gets harder and harder to have balance. The thing I’ve learned is, while I have more responsibility, I also have much more control over my schedule.
很多女性害怕當他們高昇時接受更多責任時，生活的平衡會愈來愈難取得。當我需要負更多責任時，我所學到的一件事情是我對我的時間表也有更多的控制權力。

Marcus Buckingham's Myths About the Lives of Women
source: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_44/b4153070934274.htm

source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/education/02blogs.html?_r=1
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hbr/mcafee/2009/11/the-illusion-of-brand-control.html

當一個企業致力於想要讓消費者變成該品牌的大使時，有沒有想過讓自己的員工先變成該企業的品牌大使呢？最極致的信任員工的方式之一是允許員工對外發言，而且不censor。這種對外發言，不一定是官方的對外發言，可指讓員工可以自由的跟外界抒發意見，小至MSN的暱稱，大至自己的blog等等。

有一個不錯的例子：MIT每年選拔學生bloggers，納入學生的blogs來當作招生的工具，也不審查內容，如果內容是批評校園服務的，也不會拿下，而是請該服務的負責單位上網解釋。這個作法是五年前先請一個學生寫，後來邀請更多的寫手來寫。

An oft-quoted proverb says: "The best leader, the people do not notice. When the best leader's work is done, the people say, 'We did it ourselves.'"

(source:http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/bregman/2009/11/how-not-achieving-something-is.html?cm_re=homepage-061609-_-body-middle-tert-_-voices)

作者一開頭講自己開顧問公司時，屢約潛在客戶但是老是被取消會議，後來在這個過程中，他有些體會，節錄如下：

Which has led me to believe that anyone can do anything. As long as three conditions exist:
這讓我想到任何人可以作任何事情，只要有三個條件存在：

1. You want to achieve it 你想要達成它
2. You believe you can achieve it 你相信你可以達成它
3. You enjoy trying to achieve it 你喜歡嘗試著達成它

We often think we only need the first two but it's the third condition that's most important. The trying is the day-to-day reality. And trying to achieve something is very different than achieving it. It's the opposite actually. It's not achieving it.
我們通常想我們只需要第一個條件就好，但是第三個條件才是最重要的。因為嘗試的過程是每天的事實。「嘗試達成」跟「達成」是非常不一樣的。事實上，兩者是相反的概念。「嘗試達成」就是「還沒達成」。

If you want to be a great marketer, you need to spend years being a clumsy one. Want to be a great manager? Then you'd better enjoy being a poor one long enough to become a good one. Because that practice is what it's going to take to eventually become a great one.如果你想要成為很好的行銷人，你需要花費時間當一個笨拙的行銷人。想要當一個很棒的經理，那你最好先喜歡當一個較差的經理一段時間之後，才能變成一個優秀的經理。因為要當一個好的經理需要「練習」。

文末小結一下，因為在達成目標之前，需要很多的練習跟嘗試，這是每天的生活，所以得要「喜歡」嘗試的過程，才能持續一直練習下去。

(source:http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/trapani/2009/11/have-a-freelancers-mindset-eve.html?cm_re=homepage-061609-_-body-middle-tert-_-voices)

在經濟不景氣時，人人自危，已經有正職工作的人，可以參考一下freelancer的心態。

Freelancers know how to hustle. As a freelancer, you can't afford to become irrelevant, because that could mean that the next gig will never come. Freelancers are constantly networking, marketing, and staying on top of the latest and greatest tools and news in their field to make themselves the go-to person for a certain kind of service or expertise. Good freelancers live on their toes. They're adaptable to changing opportunities, and can quickly shift gears, evaluate different jobs, refer potential clients to their freelancer friends, and chat at the virtual watercooler about who needs what. Freelancers know when it's time to pull an all-nighter and when they can take an afternoon off to catch a matinee. Freelancers don't put their careers on cruise control for long periods of time because they're setting the course — not their boss or company.

...繼續閱讀

這一篇文章上週閱讀到，在我腦海中停留一陣子，我覺得作者說的很有道理。工作久了，就會對於文化或制度之類的瞭解一些，知道什麼是不能碰的、不該說的、不要去挑戰的。遇到這樣的狀況，我會不願意妥協於某個信念中，但選擇迴避，下文給我一些反省。雖然這是一篇寫給老闆看的，但是領人薪水的人看了也不賴。

The Kinds of Employees You Want to Hire
你想要雇用的員工

There are two kinds of employees. Some believe they can make things happen, and the others believe that things happen to them. The first group believes that the outcome of their life and career is more or less in their own hands, and they wouldn't have it any other way. The other group takes more of a Forrest Gump approach: They sit around and wait for a bus to take them somewhere.
有兩種員工。有些人相信他們可以促成事情發生，有的人則認為事情發生在他們身上。第一群人相信他們生活跟職業的結果是或多或少操控在他們手上，而且他們不會選擇別條路。另一群人則採取像阿甘的方式，他們只是坐著等著公車帶領他們去到某地。

想閱讀更多請點: http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/sep2009/ca20090922_894897.htm

不管任何事情，工作或感情或生活其他層面也好，過於隨緣沒有付出努力，很難相對應有回應。研究裡面說當你覺得自己可以控制一些事情時，通常成果也如你所預期般比較好。

2008年一月跟七月的Harvard Business Review 算是去年重作吧！
主題分別是

• (一月)Leadership & strategy

• (七月)How to get an edge, keep it sharp, and employ it.

待補上

以下頁數均是指2008七月雜誌

(P.12) Big ideas come from tackling big problems. 典型作法是會將一個大問題拆解可以方便管理的小部分，再一一對付，有一些英文術語如pilot projetcs (先導計畫) 或是low-hanging fruits (可輕易實現的目標)等等，就是形容這些。本文認為可以用更大膽方式處理大挑戰。(但可惜沒有進一步說明了)

從橫切面看
在19AD中，最複雜的管理就是automobile assembly plant (汽車生產工廠)，這種運作、管理、生產知識由汽車產業複製到其他產業去，管理的重點在「效率efficientcy」。而今日組織中，另一個最複雜的就是tertiary care hospitals (三級照護，運用複雜的醫學技術及專家)，管理的重點在「學習learning」。




從縱切面看
(P.19) 回到汽車業，如果放長歷史來看，下圖我覺得很有趣，感覺點出了景氣是80年一個循環。汽車產品有兩個部分：核心功能跟附加功能 the core (the product's primary purpose) and the augumented (addictional functions and features.) 咖啡色表核心功能，而藍色表附加功能。

1908 福特的Model定位為基本交通工具(basic transportation)。但是1920年世界改變，消費者比較有錢，所以GM認為車不是一個機械，將定位車為身份地位的表徵 (a status symbol)，切出幾個區隔。1950中在二次大戰後，人們喜歡很耗油具有男子氣概的車子，所以由戰鬥機技術來改造出這樣的車。而1980年經濟又不好，人們開始考慮基本需求。

...繼續閱讀

分享以下文章
(source: http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hmu/2009/05/real-leaders-ask.php)

How to Ask Better Questions
如何問好問題

當你的下屬有個狀況來問你，你直接給解決方案嗎？請在想想。如果你直接給答案，你會扼殺下屬成長的機會。

When faced with an employee's problem, you can respond in a much more value-adding way: by asking the right questions, help her find the best solution herself. We aren't talking about asking just any questions but, rather, employing questions that inspire people to think in new ways, expand their range of vision, and enable them to contribute more to the organization.
你可以以比較有價值的問法來問他，讓他自己找到好答案。問一些可以激發人們新的思考方式、擴展他們的視野，以及使他們對組織作貢獻。

通常是開放式問題，最有效並且賦予下屬思考能力的問題如下：

The most effective and empowering questions create value in one or more of the following ways:

1. They create clarity: "Can you explain more about this situation?"
   釐清作用：「你可以對這個情況解釋多一點嗎？」
2. They construct better working relations: Instead of "Did you make your sales goal?" ask, "How have sales been going?"
   建立更好工作關係：與其問「你達成你的業績目標嗎？」不如問：「目前銷售如何？」
3. They help people think analytically and critically: "What are the consequences of going this route?"
   幫助人們嚴謹分析思考：「如果走這個方是式，可能會有什麼後果？」
4. They inspire people to reflect and see things in fresh, unpredictable ways: "Why did this work?"
   激勵人去反省以及用新的、未預期的方式看事情：「為什麼這個有效？」
5. They encourage breakthrough thinking: "Can that be done in any other way?"
   鼓勵突破性思考：「可以用其他任何方式達成嗎？」
6. They challenge assumptions: "What do you think you will lose if you start sharing responsibility for the implementation process?"
   挑戰假設：「如果你開始為這個執行過程要承擔責任，你想你會損失什麼嗎？」
7. They create ownership of solutions: "Based on your experience, what do you suggest we do here?"
   創造員工成為解決方案者：「根據你的經驗，你會建議我們怎樣作？」

此文章還有探討對團體問的問題，以及不該問的問題，可點最上方source進一步閱讀。

A Workplace Civil War: Women Bullying Women
職場內鬥 女人欺壓女人

來源: http://city.udn.com/50132/3454178

摘錄這一篇文章講女性管理，覺得下面的市調發現有意思。雖然人不過就是分成男或女，二分法思維過於簡單，也開始讓我回想起工作中所見識過的N位女性管理人。

Research on gender stereotyping from Catalyst suggests that no matter how women choose to lead, they are perceived as “never just right.” What’s more, the group found, women must work twice as hard as men to achieve the same level of recognition and prove they can lead. 「催化劑」做的性別刻板印象研究顯示，無論女性選擇如何領導，都會被視為「過之或不及」。尤有甚者，該團體發現，女性必須比男性賣力兩倍，才能獲得同等的認可，證明女性也能領導。

“If women business leaders act consistent with gender stereotypes, they are considered too soft,” the group found in a 2007 study. “If they go against gender stereotypes, they are considered too tough.” 「如果女性企業領袖的領導風格和性別刻板印象一致，她們會被視為太過柔弱」，該團體在2007年的研究發現，「如果她們的領導風格顛覆性別刻板印象，則會被視為太過強悍」。

原始NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/business/10women.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

美國的社會背景跟我們不一定一樣，由於女權議題美國風行，所以當女性在那邊長大，是不是接收到「男性比我強，我得要更努力爭取？」這樣的心理暗示。但是人性有些共通處，我覺得該市調的洞悉蠻有道理。

另外解釋一下bully這個字，常見於指小孩被別的小孩欺負，譬如推他一把、打架、要錢之類的。在職場上，指超過六個月以上的敵意行為，像是被瞪視、被沈默對待、不尊重無理的態度，或影響他人來對付你。
Bullying involves verbal or psychological forms of aggressive (hostile) behavior that persists for six months or longer. Their 29 questions include: Over the last 12 months, have you regularly: been glared at in a hostile manner, been given the silent treatment, been treated in a rude or disrespectful manner, or had others fail to deny false rumors about you?