TechChat #2 @ Saigon Silicon Straits

Khang Nguyen là cựu sinh viên của Đại học quốc tế RMIT, từng là Founder và President của RMIT IT Club. Khi ra trường,...

Posted by Silicon Straits Saigon on Thursday, July 16, 2015

On Temptation

Src: Family Guy

Are you really sure you mean "temptation"?

How should you treat your temptation? Kill it with fire and bury its ash at the bottom of Challenger Deep, I propose. Words are powerful. When something is called a temptation, it is not just described, it is infused with emotions, the speaker's emotions. The only difference between a temptation and a calling is the emotions people have for them. In one case, the desire is regarded as unwise, wrong, or immoral, while the other is righteous. This perception frames temptation and limits the scope of discussion.

What is much more interesting is the thought process through which our limbic brain chooses to throw a desire into either temptation or calling basket, and our neocortex brain tries to figure out if it makes sense to pursue the desire, or not. The limbic brain, or the old brain, is at the core of human brain and is responsible for, among many things, emotion, motivation, learning and memory. The neocortex brain, or the new brain, is the outer layer of human brain and is what sets us apart from animal. Neocortex brain is responsible for all the reasoning we are capable of. When the limbic brain and neocortex brain disagree with each other, when reasoning doesn't match emotion, we don't feel "right" and that, possibly, is the most common feeling towards desire.

Limbic brain, as a part of the bigger autonomic nervous system, doesn't take command from its human. So all my attempts in the past to smash some senses into my feeling has been futile. These days, I am trying to make my neocortex listen to its pigheaded colleague more. And that consists of three principles.

Principles, because I am an engineer

We human want shit lot of things. I should know it, because everyday I talk to myself "I want to read that book", "I want to understand all the charts Google Analytics is showing me", "I want to learn a new (programming) language". And I actually ended up doing a lot of that.

• I studied Spanish, though a rational decision would have been to finish my Mandarin
• I tried to play guitar, only to find out that I have no sense of beat and rhythms
• I built a company and watched it falling apart, crushing some of my best friendships in the process

I am sure you too can relate to an awful lot of things you did and wished you had not. If I get to make those decisions again, would I do differently? Errr ya, I didn't get burned for nothing. I learned a bit here and there and I am a bit wiser now. But that shouldn't be the question. Given that I cannot travel between multiverses, I will never be given the same situation twice. Projecting what would I do differently if the same event happens in the future gives a false sense of security and improvement.

The one question that more likely to haunt me is "5 years, 10 years from now, would I regret not doing that?". Notice that I try to imagine what I would think in a relatively long period from now. I have learned that right after the event, there is always a strong sense of regret, like a hangover Monday.

I regret a lot of decisions in my life. But a few good ones gave me unparalleled experience, If I didn't fall into those "temptation", none of that would have a chance to exist, I would have less scars on my soul, I might even be fatter because I wouldn't have to think that much. And my life would be anything but a shell of the current one.

And that is my first principle "How haunting it would be for not doing this?"

Steve Jobs had an excellent speech about connecting the dots. Somewhere along the lines, he stated that we can only connect the dots looking backward and that we have to believe the dots will somehow connect in your future and let our guts take the lead. I think the dots have the power to project future too, if you get out of the way.

Once in a while, I stop and look back at my life, I experience this vision where I observe my younger self from a third-person view (and feel extremely embarrassed, like the time I was 3 and told mom proudly about this girl I liked in kindergarten) (or just now when I realized it is kindergarten, not kindergarden :| ).  I also start to see patterns in my life, things that I want to do more, can do once in a while and would be happy to remove completely. Patterns have followed me for twenty-something years of my life are there for a reason, and probably will continue to do so for another 20 years. After which I will have my midlife crisis and go nuts.

Of course there are cases where people change so suddenly and profoundly that the event voids all prior history data. Growing up, every of us must have experienced this once or twice. But I guess when you remember the event, you also remember about the context, the way people treat you (both good and bad) and the intensive shift of emotions you went through. And that kinda remind you why you are who you are. Though I agree that those emotions are hard to express, because not all of us are Murakami.

Biologically, neocortex governs reasoning and short-term memory, but when it becomes experience and merges with emotions, it falls under the domain of limbic brain. That's why the way historians depict a period you were in doesn't feel right. At least my dad told me so.

And that is my second principle, you didn't pop out and be twenty-something out of no where, listen to your experience.

The final principle is about finding a balance. Because doing just whatever you feel like doesn't always make you a noble achiever, more like it makes you a criminal. I have this urge that whenever I cross the streets of Saigon, I want to kick a passing by biker and see what happens.

I think freedom is overrated, not because Vietnam is in communism. But because as an engineer, everywhere I see, I see constraints. And they seem to be there for good reasons. As a society, we need order so that we can live in harmony. Too much order and everything is boring. But we also need chaos, because come on, can you imagine a world where you have laws for about everything?

The key is to strike for the area in the middle, "the edge of chaos", or "the edge of order". I think they are the same thing, but I prefer the later, starting for order and moving toward chaos is easier to navigate for me. What it means to me is to keep the constraints to the minimum and let my heart tell me the rest.

But what are the constraints? That is a very good question. Unfortunately, like many other good questions, I don't have the answer for that. But I can try to explain. Let's look at my favorite extracurricular activity at school: skipping class and go to game center. For some of my friends, the constraint was not to skip any class at all. From a very few others, it was not to go to class at all. But I guess most of us would avoid these extremes and go for somewhere in the middle, like what I did. My constraint back then was not to let my parents know about my "extracurricular activities". As long as the constraint was preserved, I had complete freedom to go to either class or game center. I ended up graduating from high school just fine.

My plan didn't always work. Every once in a while, my teacher would call home to check my sickness and my father would be like "shit he did it again"  and make up some good excuses and go pick up the biggest stick he could find. It is indeed safer to stick to the safe zone, ie not skipping class, and nothing can go wrong there. If I played it safe, my life would be a bit less lively, the sky in my memory more grayish and grass more yellow, but I would pass by high school peacefully. And as an adult, I could keep the same strategy and I wouldn't be hurt. But the thing is, I don't want to just survive, I want to have my stories, I want to connect to the people in my life. And I can't manage to connect to them while keeping my defense stance, with a stick. There is a risk associated with that, and I was hurt, but as time goes by, I am getting better at choosing what damage I can take, what I can't.

I guess that what my counselor meant by "stepping out of your comfort zone" but back then I couldn't understand why doing things I wasn't comfortable with could make me feel better, it just made me sick. I still don't understand that now, I just made up my own theory.

So...

I am sorry I took you on such a long detour, and in the end doesn't tackle much on temptation itself. That's because I don't want to look at the tip of the iceberg and overlook fundamental problems. Though splitted into 3 principles, I guess at the end of the day, what I wanted to say is that, in most of the cases, you have already got the answer, and all the consults you are seeking for, is to justify that spark of feeling. I think that we, in general, are spending more time to consume information, and less time for retrospection and generating original thoughts. Because it is much easier to look for a 3-min tip on resisting temptation on the Internet, than to take a good look into the mess that has built up in your mind over the years.

Think about it, I am wearing clothes someone else made, writing this post on a computer someone else made. The only thing I can make, are my thoughts. And if even those thoughts aren't original, then I don't know what I am doing with my life.

Src: Deep Dark Fears

Stories of the underdogs

Disclaimer: What I am writing, I learned a lot from the books "David & Goliath" - Malcolm Gladwell and "I am Zlatan Ibrahimovic".

----

The fight of the century

Mayweather vs Pacquiao is the ultimate fight of 2015. The winner unified the belts. People expected a classic fight on a classic night, one of the greatest fights of all times. What happened in the ring shocked the whole world, in the way no one could have expected. The century fight was described as one way, boring, and too practical, and the one who was pushed hard during the rounds, Mayweather, ended up winning the fight. The tweet "Mayweather run like a chicken, hug like a bear" got 5k retweets and 8k favorites. And I don't know if that was the original tweet, or one of the first. You get the idea.

src bloodyelbow

There was a fundamental difference between the two players way before the match began. Pacquiao (Pacman) was looking for the next challenge in his life. He was a random kid in The Philippines working his way to the top through faith, hard work and failures. Pac wanted a war. Mayweather was looking for a sport event, media coverage and arguably a jackpot. He was trained for a game.

And the difference between a game and a war is that a game has its set of rules, spoken and unspoken, while a war, due to its vital nature, puts as little constraint on it as possible. If you were an gazelle running away from a cheetah, it would make little sense to choose the path with most obstacles (a hurdler) or limit the distance to 100 or 200m (Olympic standard sprint distances). Though in fact the big cat would very likely to gave up after a certain distance (100-150m) after which the reward isn't worth the effort and risks.

The first word most people associate with boxing is knockout. Rocky and Muhammad Ali are probably right up next. When a knockout happens, even a three-year-old can tell who won. The one standing. Around 64.2% of boxing matches end in knockouts. But that includes both amateur and professional. Among pro boxers at their prime, knockouts are very very rare, thank to their agility and resilience. Hence boxing matches are scored.

How a professional boxing match is scored is surprisingly absurd. The judges rely on their judgement and are technically never wrong, even when they clearly are. The logic is regarded as a matter of deep philosophical reasoning. However, anyone knows the rule of basketball would see that American like to quantify thing (which I assume the main reason behind big mac with diet coke). So in recent years, the judges are leaning to the one who lands the greater number of punches.

Mayweather vs Pacquiao scorecard, most important metrics top. 

Boxing, from "the art of hand combat" is turning itself into "the art of hitting and not being hit".

Mayweather got criticized the most for "hug like a bear, run like a chicken" but both are completely allowed in pro boxing though. Running (technically footwork) and hugging (clinching) are fundamental of virtually all martial arts and widely accepted in professional competition. Clinching is typically used when a fighter is hurt or extremely tired and wants to survive the round. It is no surprise many fighters include clinching in their strategy.

src: bbc

So why the world was left in awe? Pacman was shorter and had far worse reach than Mayweather (169 vs 173cm, and 170 vs 183cm). That was like playing basketball with a guy 13cm taller. Pacman had 5 losses (6 now) and 2 draws in his career. Mayweather won all the fights he has been in. And most obvious, Pacman only got 40/60 split of the purse. In short, Pacman was perceived as the underdog, and Mayweather an alpha. But it was Mayweather who used an underdog strategy in the game. Avoiding being hit and clinching to slow down opponent momentum are the strategies of those who run out of option and want to survive another round. That wasn't what an alpha dog supposed to do. And people sensed that it wasn't "fair", they found themselves speechless.

Rules of the underdogs

Rules in modern sport are the result of a mixture of both spoken and unspoken ones. It is in the mix of unspoken rules people define the so-called sportsmanship. Footballers usually kick the ball out of the field when someone is injured even before the referee stops the match, that is sportsmanship. A traditional game of frisbee is run entirely on sportsmanship (there is a set of rules, but there is no referee). And what Tyson did to Holifield was anti-sportsmanship. An underdog is expected to lose, he has everything against him. Throughout history whenever an underdog engaged in a toe-to-toe game with an alpha, he usually ended up losing. An underdog best hope is to look for an unconventional strategy, one that copes with the spoken rules and exploits the unspoken rules to make up for his disadvantages.

Jose Mourinho, Chelsea FC's manager, called himself The Special One. As a footballer, he was ordinary, lacked the requisite pace and power to become a professional. As a manager, he made his name as a trophy-winner. He has repeatedly successfully brought professional teams at different countries to top of their leagues and won most titles a manager could get in his career.

src: skysports

Mourinho's tactics are often criticized as ruthlessly practical. His players can be negatively defensive, throw out fouls to block opponent momentum, and notoriously "park the bus" in front of the goal post to secure wins. But that works. He led Portugal Porto to UEFA Cup 2003 and Champions League 2004. Then Brit Chelsea to Premier League 2005 and 2006. And Italian Inter Milan Champions League 2010.

But why aren't the rest of the world doing that, because screw beauty of the sport, it is titles and trophies that people remember? Because it is hard. The underdog strategy is not a silver bullet. It is not a simple one-line wisdom that let you win the game other have been playing for years. Most of the sports (and everything else that human do) are acts of skills and finely calibrated execution. What an underdog strategy does is to use effort over ability. And that is shit lot of effort.

Footwork and clinching aren't used as a primary defensive strategy of most fighters because it drains energy faster than any other strategy. It is more effective to turn to some other proactive defensive moves. And getting out of a clinch is a high risk move, your arms are entangled and that leaves you defenseless. That is hard work, and if the professionals just good enough, they won't be convinced to practice and play that hard. Underdogs have to be so desperate, so bad that they have no other choice for this to work out.

Before Mourinho came, the name of Porto never made it out of their country. Chelsea never escaped the shadow of its neighbor opponent, Arsenal. And Inter Milan had not seen the glory in Ronaldo era for long time. What Mourinho did was to put the clubs' superstars to the ground, constantly reminded them that despite of their paycheck, the only first-class citizens among footballers is the trophy winner and they were not. He spent 20m to celebrate Chelsea championship and then whole team back to the drill. And his favorite drill was to replay the video when his players were bad and said "So miserable! Hopeless! Those guys can't be you. They must be your brothers, your inferior selves", and they would nodded. They, the multimillionaire celeb playboys, were ashamed. And they would go to war for Mourinho. (That wasn't from me, that was from the very Zlatan Ibrahimovic).

There was one time, Mourinho strategy didn't work out. That was his 03 years at Real Madrid. Because Mourinho style wasn't on the same league with Real Madrid. The club was building it Galaxy 2.0 with all the biggest names money could buy. 03 out of 05 most expensive transfers were made by this club. C. Ronaldo was there. G. Bale was there. Heck, 03 forwards of Real Madrid could buy another team in La Liga. They just couldn't be put into the mindset of the underdogs. They had never been in their lives and they had no intention to be, even if that was the Special One. Out of 22 possible trophies, Mourinho won 3, not bad, but that wasn't Real Madrid expectation. They wanted domination. For they were the alpha.

Next time, when you are confronting giants, remember the advantages of disadvantages (and the disadvantages of advantages).


http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/01/sport/mayweather-pacquiao-feat/
http://animals.mom.me/far-can-cheetah-run-before-rest-2587.html
http://deadspin.com/5917475/how-judges-score-a-boxing-match-and-how-manny-pacquiao-got-screwed
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2452231-mayweather-vs-pacquiao-scorecard-results-complete-punch-stats-and-breakdown
http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f53/what-percentage-boxing-matches-end-knockout-948529/
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/01/sport/mayweather-pacquiao-by-the-numbers/
http://www.ibtimes.com/floyd-mayweather-vs-manny-pacquiao-2015-how-much-money-did-boxers-make-saturday-1907236
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/feb/04/jose-mourinho-chelsea-manchester-city-tactics
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/9739857/chelsea-real-madrid-inter-milan-and-porto-jose-mourinhos-21-trophies
http://www.bxfclub.com/clinch-boxing-clinching.html
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1763718-zlatan-ibrahimovic-gives-explosive-views-on-jose-mourinho-and-pep-guardiola

Promo video for RMIT

A week ago, RMIT published this promo video featuring me. The video was shot all the way back to 2013 and I almost forgot about it. It is mid 2015 now and many things have changed. Like I am no longer working at Cogini and I went through 2014 with a lot of significant changes in life.

Anyway, for the sake of recording everything about me on the internet, here is the video. Don't ask me why I was shaking the chair like an idiot or why my hands were as rigid as branches of wood. I don't know.

Good grades, good opportunities

When I was a kid, happiness was a number. If I did my math right, and conveniently ignored whether there was an actual kid who wanted to count his candies rather than just ate them all before his siblings knew, I would get a 10. I knew mom would give me 500 VND for that. If I got lucky and didn't misspell my writing, I would get another 10.

With 1000 VND, I could buy a new pencil and do ever more math, and perhaps the guys in Harvard would notice me. Or screw math, I could buy ice-cream and be the happiest boy on earth. The neighbor kid, Linh, couldn't be as happy as I was, she always got 9s.

src: yelp.com

But people seemed to have trouble with my happiness. School was hell for a 6 year-old. Right when I knew how to count, they wanted me to add and subtract. By the time I knew that if I had 8 candies and gave to Linh 3, I would have only 5 left (why would I want to do that!), they had already had multiplication, division and fraction in mind. As if giving 3 candies to Linh wasn't bad enough, was I supposed to share half a candy with her?

src: glasbergen.com

One goal after another and I found myself procrastinating throughout my adolescent, not in the sense that I delayed the assignment till morning of the submission day like you did last semester, but in the sense that I chose to do the easy and amusing instead of ones that actually mattered. School was hell, yeah, but it was also easy. School is designed so that as long as you follow instructions, do what you are told, and spend less time making duck face on Facebook, you would get a decent grade. What is hard is to know what you want in this life, and how to achieve it (unless your lifetime wish was to follow instructions, in which case you can make life better by being a police). It is ridiculously hard. It is hard because people would teach you the pythagorean theorem but wouldn't teach you how to listen to your heart. And it is ridiculous because it is weird to think of a system in which you have to ask for permission to go to toilet as the one that would empower you to do whatever the heck you want to in your life.

I did what I was told and was promised that I would be successful. Finish course CS404, which is a prerequisite for CS503. Get 80% of this assignment for HD. Go intern at that company, they do agile, which is hot. Those are clear, obvious instructions.

"If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?" is the most stupid mocking question for people in their early 20s. Because when you are 20-something, there is no actual cliff with a warning sign "Do not jump unless you are Chuck Norris", and peer pressure is real. When everyone you know is either doing something, or telling you to do something, it requires enormous will power to do otherwise.

By the time I graduated, I didn't know how to do tax or why should I pay tax. Nor did I know how to fix my bike. Heck I didn't even know that when I asked a girl out, I was supposed to plan the whole day instead of saying "wherever, I am easy going". Which, boys, was totally acceptable for a girl to say. Double standard! But I knew how to make something as simple as a spreadsheet sound complicated and called it by a jargon, database. And people paid me a shit load of money, which was nice.

In fact, people paid me too much that I could buy more ice-cream than I would ever be able to consume. And that wasn't the ultimate happiness the 6-year-old me thought. Even though having a bigger ice-cream cone than the kid next to me is still pretty badass.

At times, I think I have this hole in my chest that I need to fill. As time gone by, I learned that competing who has a bigger ice-cream cone with a kid is evil, his mom told me so. I had some experience asking girls out. And I also started to hate people who call everything with columns and rows a database. Excuse me, that is my privilege!

I don't think spending a whole lot of time with books, paper and pencils is a bad idea at all. I have had more enjoyable time with my own thoughts that with numerous people. But if it is not your thing, don't bother. If you have been in a Work Place Preparation course, someone should have told you about the classic question "Where do you want to be in the next 5 years?". To be frank, it is impossible to see where the path you are going will take you. But you can always choose the medium to get there, be it bicycle, airplane or bare feet. Study hard and get good grades is just one among many things you can do in your life. And by focusing too much on a part, you miss the whole spectrum of possibilities and opportunities. Do you know how sad it is for a puppy to look at a rainbow?

P/s: in case you are wondering what does a dog have anything to do with rainbow, dogs are sorta color blind, they can't see as many colors as we can. Dogs' rainbow looks like this.

And we, too, are sorta colorblind, compared to mantis shrimp. Everything is perspective. Or perspective is everything. I don't know.

============================

Hồi nhỏ đi học, hạnh phúc là một con số. Nếu như tôi làm toán đúng, và không hỏi ngược làm sao lại có đứa dở hơi ngồi đếm kẹo mà không ăn hết đi cho rồi, tôi sẽ được một con 10. Má sẽ cho tôi 500 đồng. Hôm nào tôi hên, viết đúng chính tả, tôi lại được một con 10 nữa.

Có một ngàn, tôi sẽ mua được cây bút chì mới, làm thêm nhiều bài toán nữa, và những người ở viện đại học sẽ chú ý đến tôi. Nhưng mà kệ mẹ viện đại học, tôi mua kem và vui hết chỗ nói. Con Linh hàng xóm không thể nào hạnh phúc hơn tôi được, nó toàn được 9 điểm.

src: twimg.com

Nhưng mà mấy người ở trường hình như không có dễ hạnh phúc như tôi. Ngay khi tôi biết đếm, người ta muốn tôi làm tính cộng với trừ. Lúc mà tôi biết là nếu tôi có 8 cây kẹo và cho con Linh 3 cái, tôi sẽ có 5 cây kẹo (sao tôi lại phải chia kẹo với nó?), thì người ta đã nghĩ đến phép nhân, chia, và phân số rồi. Làm như đưa kẹo cho con Linh chưa đủ thảm, tôi còn phải chia với nó nửa viên kẹo chắc?

Hết phép tính rồi đến đạo hàm, tôi chạy theo mấy con số hoài và chần chừ cả thời thiếu niên. Không phải chần chừ kiểu ngâm tiểu luận đến tận ngày chót như mấy ba vừa làm học kỳ trước đâu. Nhưng mà tôi cứ làm hoài mấy thứ dễ, mà bỏ bê những thứ quan trọng. Trường học thiệt gò bó, nhưng mà dễ òm. Trong trường, miễn là bạn học theo sách, làm những bài tập người ta bảo bạn làm, và bớt chu mỏ trên Facebook lại, thì bạn có được con điểm đàng hoàng. Nhưng mà biết bạn muốn gì trong cuộc sống, và làm gì để đạt được, thì khó kinh khủng luôn (trừ khi bạn tính nói với tôi khao khát cuộc đời bạn là sống theo một cuốn sách, trong trường hợp đó, bạn có thể cân nhắc làm công an). Nó khó tại vì người ta dạy bạn định lý Pythagore chứ hông có dạy bạn lắng nghe ruột gan mình. Và thiệt là kinh khủng khi cái nơi mà bạn muốn đi vệ sinh cũng phải xin phép lại được quảng bá là nơi chấp cánh cho mọi ước mơ điên khùng.

src: primaryeflresources

Nên là hồi đó tôi cứ làm theo lời người ta bảo, và được hứa là tôi sẽ thành công. Học xong khoá CS404, rồi lên CS503. Làm xong 80% tiểu luận để được điểm tốt. Đi thực tập ở công ty nọ, tụi nó làm agile, đang hot. Đó là những định hướng rõ ràng.

"Nếu mấy đứa bạn mày nhảy cầu, mày có nhảy không?" là câu hỏi vừa móc họng, vừa ngu si nhất trần đời. Vì mấy khi trong đời này, bạn thấy cây cầu nào có bảng "Cấm nhảy, trừ Chuck Norris"? Và áp lực xã hội thì mạnh hơn cả trọng lực. Khi mà mọi người xung quanh b, hoặc thì cắm đầu làm, hoặc thì bảo bạn cắm đầu đi, phải cứng lắm mới nghĩ khác đi được.

Đến hồi tôi tốt nghiệp, tôi không biết tại sao tôi phải đóng thuế, và đóng làm sao. Tôi cũng không biết sửa xe máy. Má, tôi còn không biết là khi rủ con gái đi chơi, câu "Đi đâu cũng được" là không chấp nhận được (nhưng mà lũ con gái thì nói câu đó thì bình thường, WTF). Nhưng mà tôi biết làm những thứ đơn giản như cái file excel nghe hoành tráng và phức tạp, gán cho nó cái tên bác học "database". Và người ta trả tôi cả đống tiền để làm mọi thứ tôi đụng vào nghe phức tạp.


 (Unrelated, but, everyone, me everyday)

Mà thực ra là, người ta đưa tôi nhiều tiền quá, đủ để mua kem cả đời ăn không hết. Nhưng hoá ra ăn nhiều kem vậy không hạnh phúc như hồi 6 tuổi tôi tưởng. Dù thì rằng ăn cây kem bự hơn thằng nhỏ đứng bên cạnh vẫn ngầu lắm.

Khi không có gì chơi, tôi thường tưởng tượng cuộc đời tôi đầy những lỗ hổng cần phải được chắp vá. Lớn dần, tôi học được là so đo cây kem của mình với con nít là xấu xa. Má thằng nhỏ bảo tôi vậy. Tôi biết nói chuyện với mấy đứa con gái hơn một tẹo. Tôi cũng bắt đầu ghét mấy người cứ đụng vô cái gì có hàng có cột là kêu database. Xin lỗi, mình anh có quyền đó thôi.

Tôi không nghĩ cắm đầu vô sách vở với bút chì là mọt sách. Nói thiệt, nói chuyện với mấy cái giọng trong đầu tôi vui hơn gặp mặt ối người. Nhưng mà nếu tôi có con, và nó ghét sách như ba nó ghét hột vịt lộn, thì cũng bình thường. Nếu bạn đi phỏng vấn, hay chuẩn bị đi phỏng vấn, chắc có người đã hỏi bạn câu thần thánh "5 năm nữa em muốn mình như thế nào?". Thì lật bàn đi về luôn cho rồi. Nói thiệt, chả có cách nào biết được 5 năm nữa bạn ra cái giống gì đâu. Nhưng mà bạn được quyền chọn phương tiện để dùng trong 5 năm đó, xe đạp, máy bay, hay chân đất cũng được. Chọn thứ bạn thích ấy. Ngồi học và kiếm điểm chỉ là một trong vô vàn thứ bạn có thể làm trong mấy mươi năm. Tập trung quá vào một việc là bỏ qua nhiều khả năng và cơ hội khác. Giống như mù màu nhìn vào cầu vồng.

P/s: Có rất ít người mù màu hoàn toàn, phần lớn họ chỉ không nhìn thấy được nhiều màu sắc như mắt bình thường. Và mắt của con người nói chung cũng là hơi hơi mù màu, khi so sánh với con tôm tích. Mọi thứ đều tương đối.

src: southernfriedscience.com

Legitimacy in management

"I am surrounded by idiots" is the secret more young managers keep than they want to admit.

http://www.quickmeme.com/

The typical promotion path of these middle level managers started as being high achievers. Early in their careers, they put in the time, effort and study to thrive. Gradually they become really good at a certain kind of job, be it developing, testing, or designing, and possess a specific set of skills that make them valuable. Upper management shows it appreciation by giving them raises and putting them in a management position. It is in this new position where the very skills and knowledge which made them successful in the last position that make they feel everyone under them is stupid, ignorant, and doesn't give a crap.

From that turning point, managers start to feel alone in their new role. Everywhere they look, they see people who tried to hold them back, gave up in their careers, and certainly can't understand how their success feels. They start to believe it is human nature and internal drives that led to the difference between them and others. As a young principal architect, speaking for countless of other fellow high achievers, put "I learned that developers are developers for a reason. They don't work hard enough, or aren't bright enough, to be architects".

http://www.theamazingpics.com/

That saying contains an assumption in it though. It roots from the belief that as an adult, the decision to work hard to get promotion is a purely rational calculation of efforts and benefits. It isn't supposed to be personal. But that is exactly where it goes wrong. Many researches have proven that we human are not as rational as we thought we were. These viewpoints range from that for rudimentary cognitive task, the increment of reward leads to poorer performance, to that happiness fuels success, not the other way around. I believe that getting professionals to actively engage in a project also has a lot to do with how people in management communicate their values, how they behave and whether a proper principle is there to keep words and actions aligned.

The principle is called “the principle of legitimacy". The idea dated back to 1814 and was used in Malcolm Gladwell's book "David & Goliath" to explain the role of lawmakers. Legitimacy is based on three things

• People have to feel like they have a voice, that if they speak up, they will be heard
• The law has to be predictable. There has to be a reasonable expectation that the rules tomorrow are going to be roughly the same as the rules today.
• The authority has to be fair. It can't treat one group differently from another.

#1 implies that employees' opinion must be valuable to management. Usually the foundation of this mutual respect is that within their specific domain, the employees possess a unique set of skills and that make their opinions particularly insightful to those who need it. Though, that rarely happens in this part of third world countries. In Vietnam, employers tend to come to developers because they are cheaper than Indian and have arguably better code of ethics than some of our neighbors. If they want to listen to someone they would come to IDEO already.

#2 states the expected behavior of the employees, as well as the words and actions of management need to be consistent. The equivalent of the law in software development is probably the specs. And among us tech people, it is a mutual understanding that the specs is never complete. For certain parts of the system, an engineer has to make assumption to keep the project move on. If he gets it right, he wouldn't get any praise because people expect it as a part of his job. If he gets it wrong, oh well, he would be blamed as having no common sense. He is said to be a bad seed and has to be let go, even though Urban Dictionary has its best 

Common sense (n): A mythical force that is supposed to bestow knowledge of the obvious. Unfortunately, humankind has proven, time and time again, that there is no such thing as common sense - Urban Dictionary

And by letting go of such "bad seed" rather than improving the specs or creating the buffer to allow certain variants of the specs, what is the message the management is sending to the remainers? That it is building a team of talented, engaging and agreeable fellows? Or that there is no place for people thinking differently from it and therefore everyone has to be in the fear that one day they would get its idea wrong and be let go?

It is debatable whether firing the bad seeds would lead to a better environment, or unless the environment changes, the effectiveness would redistribute itself and new bad seeds emerge. It is much less debatable that when the specs is not based on concrete written rules, but human whim, the predictability the specs needs is lost.

#3 depicts an ideal organization where the product is the heart of the organization and is the result of fine collaboration between various department. But in reality, depends on the organization originality, fields of expertise and office politics, there would be one group that takes the lead on product timeline and puts constraints on other teams. The management loves this team, the adult version of teacher's pet. But for the rest who have to burn midnight oil for unrealistic deadlines and whose ideas are not appreciated properly even though at the end of the day, it is them who do the hard work, everything doesn't sound fair.

It is human nature to wish to do a good job, given what they are doing, and their capabilities, skills and knowledge. But when employees look around and almost everyone would know someone else who got burned because they had a strong and vivid idea how a system would be built and unfortunately that wasn't in favor of the management. If that many people in your social graph had been pressed by management, does the system seem to be fair anymore? Does it seem predictable? Does it seem like you can speak up and be heard? And if management is seen as the enemy, how on earth would it expect people to change their ways?

Game of Politics

Office politics. As old as mankind. Taboo of modern workplace.

No matter how people avoid speaking of office politics, it remains one of the most popular reason driving people out of the organization they once loved. Those who state their organization is office-politics-free either still have the political forces on their side, or are ignorant.

src http://architechsolutions.com

So can you explain office politics for a five-year-old?

Workplace politics is the use power and social networking within an organization to achieve changes that benefit the organization or individuals within it. Influence by individuals may serve personal interests without regard to their effect on the organization itself. - Wikipedia

Okay, that is confusing. When you think of office politics, you are probably thinking about something more colorful, and sometimes, darker. Like

• When people are against you and you believe a certain colleague is the culprit behind all your miseries
• When the idiot in the next cubicle keeps getting promoted and is getting his own office now, with a door. While the hard-working you have stuck at the same place for a really long time.
• When a project failed, slings and arrows are fired and you get sick of all these hideous people that care for nothing but their own welfare

Yep, they are all credited as office politics. Any drama in an organization is.

But that is still confusing as heck. You can feel office politics in those stories, but can you articulate it? And when people don't understand something, they either fear it, or avoid it, or both. Sounds like a good reason why workplace politics became a taboo in modern society.

Office politics is a big game of monopoly

In the game of monopoly, the single governing factor is capital. In the game of office politics it is the flows of information. This applies to both formal and informal flows. What makes the difference between you, your boss and the CEO is not knowledge, skills or experience, everyone knows something better than others, but that the corporate is structured such that people higher in the organizational pyramid receive more information and lower people receive less. Same goes for gossip groups. These groups are abundant sources of informal information, and when an organization is poorly structured, or manipulated, the information doesn't get to management level and managers fail to understand the dynamics of their teams.

In monopoly, the means to acquire more capital is to own as many strategic properties as possible. In office politics, it is to put you into positions with greatest access to the flow of information. It can be as formal as climbing up in the career ladder, or as informal as holding an internal seminar for knowledge sharing, mentoring a neighbour team, or joining a sport club.

http://dailyps.com/

As in any monopoly game, you don't really have the option to opt out in the game of politics, in the same way a monopoly player has to keep rolling the dice even though she is surrounded by others' properties. The earlier you accept this, the earlier you have a proper understanding about office politics. That you choose to deny the existence of office politics and its power doesn't mean the political dynamics are not going on. It is not necessarily a bad thing and has to be avoided at all cost, like a monopoly never means to destroy your friendships even if you lose a game or two.

Office politics is all about relationship

People are affected by emotion for more than logic and reason. Which means that when we like someone, we more likely enjoy working with them and willing to do a favor. Remember that even an asshole doesn't want to work with an asshole.

That is neither right or wrong, it's just we being human.

By actively choose to engage in it, the game of office politics allows you to control your code of ethic, manage up, and build better relationship with colleagues.

What you do not know hurts you more than what you know.

=======================

Tại vì không biết dịch `office politics` sao cho hay nên để vậy. Cao nhân bốn phương xin chỉ giáo.

Office politics. Lâu như lịch sử con người, huý kị nơi văn phòng.

Chúng ta có thê quặn bụng, nhăn mặt, hay làm ngơ khi nói đến office politics, nhưng quan điểm cá nhân không thay được sự thật đây là nguyên nhân hàng đầu làm đổ vỡ cuộc hôn nhân doanh nghiệp - nhân viên. Ai bảo là nơi mình làm không có office politics thì hoặc là chưa bị chọt, hoặc là không biết gì.

src http://www.business-digest.eu

Bạn giải thích office politics cho bé đi mẫu giáo được không?

Office politics là sử dụng quyền lực và quan hệ trong một tổ chức để đạt được những thay đổi có lợi cho tổ chức hay cá nhân. Những ảnh hưởng cá nhân có thể nhầm tư lợi thay vì mang đến lợi ích tập thể. - Wikipedia

Là một định nghĩ hàn lâm, và tối nghĩa từ Wikipedia. Khi bạn nghĩ đến office politics, có lẽ bạn nghĩ đến những câu chuyện màu sắc hơn, và có thể, đen tối hơn. Kiểu

• Khi mọi người không ai theo ý mình mà mình tia là con bánh bèo kia là chủ mưu
• Khi thằng dở hơi bàn bên được thăng chức và giờ có luôn văn phòng riêng, có cửa với cái núm gỗ gụ sướng mê người, mà mình nhân-viên-chăm-chỉ thì cứ chết rú ở đây
• Khi dự án banh chành và những con người xấu xí này cứ đổ lỗi qua lại làm mình muốn bệnh

Ừ đều là office politics đó. Mà mình gọi bất kỳ chuyện om sòm nào trong văn phòng là office politics cũng được.

Nhưng vẫn lùng bùng đúng không? Mình có thể cảm thấy office politics trong những câu chuyện xung quanh nhưng mà tìm ta một định nghĩa sờ nắn được thì thiệt là khó. Mà cái gì chúng ta không hiểu, hoặc ta sợ, hoặc ta ngại, nhiều khi cả hai. Bởi vậy office politics mới thành ra huý như giờ.

Office politics là một ván cờ tỉ phú

Trong cờ tỉ phú, năng lượng vận hành trò chơi là dòng tiền. Trong trò chơi office politics, dòng tiền là dòng thông tin. Những dòng thông tin này bao gồm tin chính quy và tin ngoài luồng. Điểm khác nhau giữa mình, sếp, và CEO không phải là kinh nghiệm hay kỹ năng, mỗi người điều biết một thứ tốt hơn người khác, mà là tổ chức được cấu thành theo cách những người ở vị trí càng cao, càng nhận được nhiều thông tin, và những người ở thấp thì ít hơn. Mấy nhóm bà tám buôn dưa lê cũng vậy. Mấy nhóm này thừa mứa thông tin chợ trời, trong một tổ chức yếu, hay bị thao túng, thông tin này không đến được phía trên và bậc quản lý ngày càng xa cách.

Chơi cờ tỉ phú, muốn có thêm tiền thì phải mua những miếng đất tốt. Trong trò chơi office politics, những miếng đất tốt là những vị trí tiếp cận được với các luồng thông tin. Có thể chính thống như leo lên mức thang nghề nghiệp cao hơn. Có thể cà chớn như vô team đá banh :)

src http://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/

Trong cả hai trò chơi này, mình không có lựa chọn đứng im không làm gì hết, mình vẫn phải thả xúc xắc dù nguyên con đường đằng trước mấy đứa bạn tốt xây khách sạn hết rồi, vô là chém luôn. Càng chấp nhận sớm điều này, càng sớm hiểu đúng về office politics. Mình làm ngơ với game show văn phòng không có nghĩa nó không diễn ra. Và office politics tự nó không xấu, cũng như cờ tỉ phú chưa bao giờ được tạo ra để mấy đứa bạn bo xì nhau dù có thua nợ đầm đìa.

Office politics chính là cách đối nhân xử thế

Chúng ta bị ảnh hưởng bởi cảm xúc nhiều hơn lý trí. Nghĩa là khi mình mến một bạn, mình thích làm việc với bạn đó hơn, và không ngại giúp đỡ người ta ít nhiều. Nên nhớ là cả thằng dở hơi cũng không muốn làm việc chung với một thằng dở hơi khác.

Và điều này chẳng sai hay đúng, vì mình là con người, vậy đó.

Chấp nhận office politics là một trò chơi, và chơi giỏi, giúp mình "giữ cái thiên lương" và xây dựng những quan hệ tốt trên cả công việc.

Những gì mình không biết thì làm mình đau hơn những thứ mình biết.