what valued most? failure or success?

At a glance, it is absurd to set this self-answerable question.  We always only remember the winner.  We are all oblivious to loser, even we are the loser, we will try our best to find an excuse to the trigger.  However, one may hear the principles of lesson learn, every failure has its value.  It lays out the ground for future success.  Today, I would like to take a more pragmatic approach to look at failure instead of just quoting some inspiring saying.

When I am looking back of my career, it is not uncommon to find out my managers, my peers and myself making the same mistakes again and again, particularly in the area of recruitment and elevation.  We all know that complacence can ruin the career of a manager while the manager keeps on rationalizing the mistakes being made.  Over-title could lead the manager to believe herself being the only smart decision maker in the organization.  It is easy to name the successful factors but difficult to replicate  Nevertheless, an organization could have been more successful if less mistakes are made.  It is easy to avoid the same mistake happen again provided people are empowered to speak up.  A serious mistake could be made when the management just wants to overwrite the structure set by her predecessor although it run well.  The superior’s acceptance is also to blame.

I would value failure more provided it is permeated to the mind of the people and the cause is fully understood.  Then we are bold to tackle the mistakes we made.

LCK is intelligent when he understood that he did not reach the level of top management few years ago.  LXJ is smart when she, as a junior manager, refused to take up a title of director.  It is nothing more than telling people that the organization is hopeless when it is determined to keep an incompetent manager in position, let alone giving elevation to him further.  Unbelievable but it does happen!

Role – the cognition and the play

I learned interaction from the book – Ten Questions, A Sociological perspective.  Then I found myself being indulged in Sociology.  Its glamor is on the thorough study of human society.  I applies interaction in all of my seminar and my personal behavior as well.  However, I still felt that there is a loophole and something is missing.  Not until I read the book “The Structure of Sociological Theory” written by Jonathan Turner about role do I fill up the gap.

Everybody has a role in the society.  It is not inborn.  It is solidified through a number of processes.  The actor chooses the role she intends to play which is affected by the environment she grows up; then she needs to recognize the role and its nature.  Role cognition is reinforced by the feedback of the society when the role is played consistently, i.e. interaction between the subject and the objects (the society and other members).  Interaction is the connection of role play and role cognition.  I got some insight of this theory.  If I am the platform administrator, I am obliged to help the members to define its role and facilitate the activities of interaction.  Of course, role definition can be more explicit but the administrator needs to refrain from influencing too much in organizing activities.

A little bit abstract!  I would like to solicit guidance from you, particularly, if you know Sociology.

Subjection – the attachment of self-rejection

I happen to read the Chinese edition of the book – The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection written by Judith Butler.  It is a very complicated literature which I cannot master all of it.  However, there is a section which I got some idea – subjection.

The author defines subjection being the attachment of self-rejection, as a result, the subject is subordinated to the power with no authentic thinking.  It is explanation of the devil of power in another angle.  There is a process of self-rejection, dissonance comes first, then either overcome the situation or yield to it, i.e. defense follows; if fail, change one’s attitude and recognize the reality; however, the critical is the yielding process; if it means a total failure to the subject, self-rejection takes place, subjection is resulted and the self no longer exist, the values of the self deteriorates.

I am missing a friend in my previous company – LHC.  He has gone through the above process.  But his yielding was only superficial; unfortunately, his manager is strong and self-centered; he just wants yes-men subordinates; LHC is capable and eager to take up challenge.  The outsourcing project was initiated by me and implemented by him.  It is proved to be successful.  Though I provided as much help as I could to LHC, his self-rejection within the organization took precedence.  The situation deteriorated to a point that I also needed to stand in the side of letting him go.

This is a lesson learn of the devil of self-rejection.  I always remind me of it and any let-go is only owing to mismatch of the job and the subject.

The missing link of Kaizen – Theory of Constraints

When I am studying Toyota Production System, I learn Kaizen – the continuous improvement.  At that time, I already know that it is a conviction or a belief which drives for continuous improvement.  However, there is no theoretical ground for Kaizen, it is believed there is always room for improvement.  This may be the major weakness of this conviction – Kaizen.

Not until a day when I read “The Goal” do I find out the ground.  Bottleneck is moving in nature.  When one bottleneck is resolved, the other non-bottleneck becomes the bottleneck.  Ultimately, the sales & marketing will become the bottleneck.  Then when it is resolved, the non-bottleneck inside the organization will emerge again as the bottleneck.  There is always room for improvement.  The last step of Theory of Constraints is do not allow inertia to cause a system’s constraint.  I am excited when I link up these 2 concepts and fill up the gap.  Kaizen is no longer a conviction, it is an end.

Maybe I am wrong.  If you have any idea, please feel free to write your comment.  Thanks in advance

Journal of Costing by Excel, Jun 2010

I finished another session of the above subject on Jun 2010.  Though only 19 enrolment, I once again got reinforcement of my belief.  “Stone from other hill may serve to polish jade”.  We definitely cannot use Excel to replace ERP, it is kidding.  But by inter-use of simple Excel functions, we can learn the mechanism of Material Requirement Planning and also appreciate the flexibility of using Excel to present high volume of data.  But I would like to address that pivot table cannot help; believe or not, go to download the template and check it out in my slideshare.net website.

1 phenomena I observe over the last 3 session both in Hong Kong & Shenzhen – all participants with IT background do not welcome the course.  Their comment is it is too simple and idealistic for the MRP mechanism though they usually overlook the theme of the course – the MRP fine-tuning and its emphasis on inventory sufficiency across weeks.  Of course, I cannot satisfy every parties and I always claim that the techniques I am passing is only a stone, the jade is still in your hand and you can choose to use the stone I provide to help polish your jade.

I use stones from various hills to polish the jade I am holding.  And you?

The Goal – Theory of Constraints

I do not know how to express my greatest thanks to John Wong – he gives the book “The Goal – A process of ongoing improvement” by Eliyahu M. Goldratt.  I swallow it within 1 week despite of the tight working schedule.  I know TOC many years ago, but just the term and some ambiguous meaning of it.  After all, I touch the originals and admit that from now on, my thinking process will definitely change due to it.  I never think that management writing can be in the form of novel.  Because of it, I fully take in the essence of Theory of Constraints.  The steps to work with TOC is nothing simpler than below:

1. Identify the system’s bottleneck
2. Decide how to exploit the bottleneck
3. Subordinate everything else to the above decision
4. Elevate the system’s bottleneck
5. If, in a previous step, bottleneck has been broken go back to step 1

It is not a complicated theory but the critical is the awareness to realize the existence of bottleneck and where it is.  Bottleneck never disappear, its existence is imperative.  Another bottleneck will follow once its predecessor is being resolved.  Similar to Lean Manufacturing, it is a philosophy of thinking, not a production techniques

I becomes Eli’s fans after I finish the reading and I order 3 books in amazon.com of his series.

John Wong, I will not return this book to you.  However, your name will always be memorable in my career.  Without your kindness surrender, I could not find another breakthrough in my thinking head.  Many thanks!