Wise words from a reverend

Definition of a successful life:

To laugh often and much;
to win the respect of intelligent people
and the affection of children;
to earn the appreciation of honest critics
and endure the betrayal of false friends;
to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others;
to leave the world a bit better,
whether by a healthy child,
a garden patch or a redeemed social condition;
to know even one life has breathed easier
because you have lived.

--Harry Emerson Fosdick

Workaholics vs Peak Performers

This is a useful checklist to keep in mind, especially with bosses constantly at our necks yelling for results and we are feeling maxed out and asking "what the hell am I doing?". Luckily for myself, I check most of the boxes on the right, although I would probably still need to do more to delegate and take more vacations. The latter is however constrained by the number of days of leave in the company policy, which means to fill that box with a firm tick, I would need to quit or work out something that allows me to take time off more often, or better still telecommute/work on a project basis and help me achieve my major objective of maximising mobility (i.e. freedom) while generating income to survive. Still trying to work things out but with optimism, courage and maybe some luck, I can hopefully achieve my goal.

via The Joy of Not Working, which btw is really a joy to read.

Managing

Below are some excerpts I got from an NYT interview with Yahoo!'s CEO posted by SY on Facebook. In this article, Carol Bartz talks about leadership and managing people. I am highlighting some bits here, a small part actually, about her views of what business schools should teach, because it resonates with what I have been thinking about for a while now, that education in schools are lacking in some vital aspects. What I mean is that schools are not teaching skills to manage the two most important things in life: one's self and one's finances. What is more important than yourself and money in your life? The usual way is to learn the hard lessons by fumbling about and making mistakes and hopefully learning from them.

We are never taught to work through complex and fundamental questions like who we really are, what do we want etc in a systematic and deliberate way, questions whose answers are the guiding posts for how we manage our lives. If we cannot manage ourselves, how do we manage others? The same goes for managing money. We are taught the importance of money and how to make more money (all those Masters in Applied Finance/Economics/Accounting/Financial Engineering courses come to mind) but we are never really taught how to manage our wealth. Making more money doesn't necessarily increase our wealth; if expenses exceed income, however large that income is, one is still poor.

Of course, I am not blaming the schools for all this or shifting parental and individual responsibility but I believe our education system can do more to help prepare our young to live a fuller life, and more importantly to lead a life that they want. To know what one really wants in life, there is no escaping from answering the question of who we really are and what is the ideal self that we want to attain. Then life is a not journey whose destination is death, but a pursuit of ideals and how we can grow in every way, spiritually, morally and mentally, to become a better person. As for money, it's simply there as a means to keep us alive and sustain us on this lifelong quest for those ideals. Nothing more, because more money will not help us grow to become a better person in any way. And if a person does not grow, he/she will never be happy.

October 18, 2009
Corner Office
Imagining a World of No Annual Reviews
This interview with Carol Bartz, chief executive of Yahoo, was conducted and condensed by Adam Bryant.

Q. How would you say your leadership style has changed over time?

A. I’m calmer. I think that just comes with confidence. I would hate to describe the C.E.O. I was in ’92. I think I was pretty pathetic, actually.

Q. Why?

A. Well, I thought it was such a big responsibility. I had public shareholders and I had a board and this is one step you take that’s a pretty big step. There’s a progression in management. The first step you take is when you’re a people manager, and then the next step is when you’re a manager of managers. And then there’s that step when you are on top. And who are you going to complain to now? Because everybody likes to complain to their boss, or their peers.

I think the biggest steps in that progression of a manager are the first and the last. The last because if it’s a public company, you say: “Wait a minute. I have shareholders. I have a board. I have press. I have all these things to juggle and I’m supposed to run this company. And how do I set my time and how perfect do I have to be?” You get that weight of the world on your shoulders and so I think you overreach. I thought I had to know answers that I didn’t have to know. I thought I had to be the biggest cheerleader, and so it just saps a lot of energy out of you because you’re the person that has to be up and on. It’s just a big responsibility.

And then you settle in over time. So I made some people mistakes — like I tried too hard with some people who should have gone earlier. You just make a lot of mistakes that you probably know in your gut are mistakes, but you’re not sure how to twist the organization around. You’re just not as confident. It’s that simple. So I actually wouldn’t have liked working for myself back then.

Q. You came out of retirement to run Yahoo.

A. I was so bored when I retired that I lost that whole section of my life. I mean I could keep reading, but I missed that whole people interaction. I’m somebody who loves politics — I mean politics in the company, as in, how do you help and enable people to get along? It’s not a dirty word. It’s how you organize. People say, “Oh, we don’t have politics.” Everybody has politics. And so be an expert at it. Figure out how to influence people to get things done, as opposed to running and ratting on them.

Q. What should business schools teach more of, or less of?

A. I think there ought to be some classes for people to get more philosophical about who they are and what motivates them, and therefore why they act like they act.

Some of the most fantastic training I’ve had over the years is the tests and the feedback I’ve gotten on what drives me as a person, and to sort of face up to it. What’s important to me and therefore why would I make certain decisions? For instance, I grew up dirt poor. I am constantly in fear of being poor. I’m so far from being poor, it’s crazy, but I’m constantly in fear of being poor. And I know that drives a lot.

Now you could say the dark side of that is maybe that would drive me to make risky decisions that I shouldn’t make. It actually drives me the other way. It drives me to be more conservative, so I’ve had to teach myself to get out of that conservative zone.

It also turns out that I’m an introvert. You would not believe that, would you? And I know I am because introverts have to refuel by being alone. Extroverts — Bill Clinton’s a famous extrovert — have to go to a party. At the end of the day, he comes home tired, and he wants to party. I come home. I suck my thumb and don’t talk to me. I learned how to get down time. Even an hour by myself feeds me.

What motivates you? What are you scared of? Knowing that will help inform how you lead, how you make choices, how you face the day. And I don’t think we do enough of that.

Q. What else?

A. I also think people should understand that they will learn more from a bad manager than a good manager. They tend to get into a cycle where they’re so frustrated that they aren’t paying attention actually to what’s happening to them. When you have a good manager things go so well that you don’t even know why it’s going well because it just feels fine.

When you have a bad manager you have to look at what’s irritating you and say: “Would I do that? Would I make those choices? Would I talk to me that way? How would I do this?”

When people come to me and say, “I can’t work for so-and-so anymore,” I say, “Well, what have you learned from so-and-so?” People want to take a bad situation and say, “Oh, it’s bad.” No, no. You have to deal with what you’re dealt. Otherwise you’re going to run from something and not to something. And you should never run from something.

Painting

Watched “I am Sam” on DVD when I was in Bangkok a couple of days ago for a weekend trip with some friends. It’s an old movie starring Sean Penn about a mentally retarded man fighting for custody of his 7-year old daughter played by Dakota Fanning. In case you wonder why I was watching DVD on a holiday trip, I was bloody ill for the entire trip and spent the first day doing nothing but lounge in the nice Ascott apartment.

Anyway, the movie was good as expected since it won some Oscar, probably for Sean Penn but what I remember from the movie was a scene of Dakota painting at her foster parent’s home. Looking at her paint, I feel an urge to go back and pick up my brushes again. She was just painting like in a totally random way or what the art world would call “abstract”. No drawings, patterns, anything to guide her. She was really “just dip brush in paint and put brush on paper” and then repeating it all over again.

I was never taught to paint like that. I spent many years as a kid learning painting/drawing under a professional art teacher (whom I realized later when I was an adult that he is actually the current Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Chinese Painting Association) who signed me up for all sorts of local art competitions. He always said that I was an impatient kid (he could tell when I was that young – I started learning from him when I was seven) and painting would make me less so. I wonder if it helped. But what I clearly remember were his instructions on how to paint. Painting to me is always deliberate, structured, orderly and purposeful. It’s about discipline. It’s also demanding. Demanding because I always need to be fully concentrated or I might make a “mistake”. So sometimes, painting can be stressful, although it’s still mostly enjoyment to me.

I want to try doing it again but this time without plan or purpose. At the end of it, I want to see what I would get and how I would feel. And I’ll blog about it. :)

Inching towards the week---end

My new apartment! (I wish)

Apartment-hunting is a real pain.

1. I hate travelling up and down. Very poor stamina, me. There are lifts but the exhaustion is not just physical. And to think, I'm only focusing on one single area.
2. I am uncomfortable dealing with owners and agents. Everything they say sounds fishy..Really!!
3. Weather has been really crapppy. So adds to my pain.
4. I get angry looking at dirty spaces. Shabby is fine but not grime or odour.

Photo via My Little Apartment

Latin wisdom

Cunctando regitur mundus

If you can outwait all, you can rule all.

Essential to this philosophy are a sense of timing reamed with patience, a ruthlessness that excludes the hesitation of emotions and an almost messanic conviction of ultimate success.

Sounds a bit extreme but the fundamental principles of patience, objectivity/rationality and self-belief are very much ingredients to success in achieving one's goals.

Fishing for info (openly)

In my line of work, it is critical for us to know who people know. We are not satisfied with just getting to know people, because we are greedy and want to know who they know and what they know about these people. But unlike spies, we do not have to hide our intentions because the nature of the business is fairly open and above ground. So people speaking to us already know we are always interested to tap their networks, and the clever ones will know how to leverage that and get what they need from us, which is generally a better job (in their definition) than what they are doing now.

But obviously them knowing our intentions does not equate to them being fully co-operative, so a lot of effort has to be put in by us to milk that info and get what we want. So along the way, I have found myself using the same techniques over and over again, and have also observed how some of my folks execute these techniques with superb finesse. Generally the principles that belie these techniques are:

Stay honest

Never come across as lying, hiding something, holding something back etc (generally just don't come across as slimy). I am always open and specific about what I want. And I communicate my requirements effectively and specifically to them.

Paint a Picture/Profile

Which then brings me to the point about how to articulate and impress upon my sources what exactly I need. I find it helpful to describe in detail about the profile, like I'm talking about a real person, rather than just sticking to the general job description that is given to me. Example: I am looking for a VP Apac to start up a business in this region for a US ball bearing company that sells mainly to the pharmaceutical industries. I don't just tell my sources the job requirements like number of years of experience, what education blah blah. I emphasise the "person" behind this job description, saying "I need someone who has that start-up expereience, not too strategic but someone willing to get their hands dirty. Have experience in selling to the pharma companies. Able to go direct to customers instead of relying on channels, yet have the maturity and ability to build relations at the highest level. Something along those lines. As my sources go off scouring their brains for that someone, I contiue feeding them the information and building that image of this "ideal" someone. Sometimes, I get my sources excited enough to say "yes, that's it, there's this guy...." and off he goes.

A Dialogue

But it's dangerous at the same time to get carried away and come across as a juicer trying very hard to extract every drop from him. That definitely cheeses people off. I find it important to "stay with the person in front of me". I give him my full attention and make him the focus of the conversation right from the start, before leading the conversation subtly away to other issues. But before that, I give him enough airtime to talk about himself, his aspirations, his thinking. And, I give him feedback on what he is telling me, which benefits him and makes it sort of a fair "dealing". I also notice that letting people talk about themselves makes them feel at ease quickly, although what they are saying should not be like responses to an interrogation, which is an obvious no-no.

Steering

So while he is going on about himself, I take mental notes and at the same time look out for opportunities for me steer the conversation in order to induce him to talk about what I want to know. In this case, I am always direct and upfront. Example: "I am interested to get to know senior people with commercial background in industrial companies selling into the pharma industries. Do you know some people?" But of course, I can't just go in abruptly; there must be an opportune time for me to slot in my request smoothly. This is the tricky part, because you have to be constantly looking out for the right moment. Which is why it is so important to "stay with the person" and not glaze off while he is going on about himself.

So once I get him on track to where I want to go, the rest is just feeding him information constantly, building that image of an ideal profile, giving him ideas/options where these talents exist and hopefully get him excited enough that he will go back after the meeting/conversation, mull over it for a couple of days and send you a list of who he knows plus their contacts. You will be surprised how motivation can spur someone to do things that may seem out of the way, and how often this can happen.

We help each other

At the end of the day, he must go home with the feeling that I'll do my best to help him anytime I can, whether is it keeping him informed about the job market, linking him up to people, recommending him to a client. The important thing is he must go away thinking this is a person who will be there for him, not one who only calls when she needs something. That leads to the question about that initial approach. Generally, it makes sense only to tap people you already know or someone who has a mutual contact with you. Nobody is going to entertain cold calls especially when you are tryng to get something out of him. It's easy to call someone you already know, to say hi, find out what he is doing and take it on from there. It's a litlle tricker to call someone who has a mutual contact with you but it works too if you budget a bit more time to build some sort of familiarity and comfort before tapping him. I always find something to leverage: Example - a colleague from another office knows XYZ because XYZ was a candidate for an assignment. So I jolt his memory, talk about the assignment he was shortlisted for, find out about him, what he thinks about the company he interviewed with, generally prepare myself by finding out beforehand some background about this person. That will breed some sense of familiarity which can be built upon, perhaps leading to somewhere. But do not go in with the expectation that you will always get something out of a conversation, because it will then be difficult to NOT come across as desperate, overly persistent or even irritating. Just be nice, and people will be nice to you too.

Can't get the voice out of my head

Remember remember the fifth of November

Gunpowder, treason and plot.

I see no reason why gunpowder, treason

Should ever be forgot...

Must be that V for Vendetta movie that rooted this to my head....

Working with People

I find it very difficult to work with, and to a greater extent, work for people whom I cannot respect. Behave professionally, yes. I still can muster enough self-control not to openly display my thoughts and feelings but really putting in heart and soul to deliver is a major challenge. I think this is parallel to how difficult it is if one were not able to find purpose and meaning in doing whatever they are doing. Because being able to devote time, energy and effort to a task is directly correlated to how much passion we have for it. Lack of passion for something or someone (in the sense of respect/admiration) equals no motivation. So how to move on anything?

Porter guy again

For record's sake, from Harvard's Michael Porter in INSEAD's newsletter article

Essence of Strategy
"Figuring out which set of needs you are going to meet in your company, which are different from the needs that your competitors are trying to meet."

"You want to find a different kind of value that you can deliver to a different set of customers. Strategy is fundamentally about how you are going to deliver unique value."

Clarity of Strategy
"In difficult times, companies that win are the ones who are very clear about who they are and how they are trying to deliver value."

"To survive, you have to have the capacity to integrate the short term and the long term, and think about the two together."
I call this the ability to marry dichotomies.

What Porter says sounds like common sense, but in reality there is a lot of rigour and work that goes into truly understanding what your competitive advantage is, and how you can deliver value based on that. This doesn't just apply to companies; it also works in life: Figuring out where your strengths lie, and how you can leverage them to ensure you deliver unique value to your employer, which then adds to your market value. Trudging along from one task to another, or from one job to another without a clear strategy is a tactical, almost transactional way to lead a life.

Confronting issues (not being confrontational)

I know lots have been written about Obama and his style of leadership but I like how this article highlighted some exceptional qualities of his style. I like how Obama actively confronted issues, which helped project a sense of trustworthiness and courage. In particular, the way he went about confronting issues - actively listening, showing how much he understood the issues and the different angles to the argument, offering provocative thoughts to solicit reactions/opinions etc. I think he personally set a new style of communication.

In the wake of President Barack Obama's recent trip to Europe, many people have been left wondering what the new idea was. Some are looking for a new coalition that will extend change beyond the U.S. Others would have liked to see results.

They are all missing the point. His métier is neither new thinking nor the exercise of influence nor the use of power. He is in the business of inspiration. It defines his approach to leadership and speaks to the kind of leadership campaign at which he is a master.

For some time now, I have found that by applying the Jungian framework of four ideal characters as presented by Robert Moore, I could create a useful topology of leaders. Some leaders are recorded by history as magicians, for they tried to change the world by the brilliance of their ideas. (Henry Kissinger was a magician, although Richard Nixon was the originator of the key ideas of the era.) Lovers know how to mobilize people by just sharing their feelings and influencing them. Bill Clinton was second to none at that. A third category of leaders are warriors, always focused on exercising power and winning, like George W. Bush. However, there is another kind of leader: the sovereign. Like Obama, sovereigns are in the business of inspiration.

Redefining What Is Possible
Inspiration is the breathing of new air; it is about redefining what is possible. It stimulates both the heart and the mind, but it appeals to the soul. In the past 20 years, inspiration has been on the retreat in the West both in practice and in leadership literature. For several reasons, people have been enamored of the other three elements of leadership: thinking, motivation, and empowerment—often referred to as execution.

Yet, most collective action is the result of inspiration. Just ponder these questions: How would the U.S. have evolved without Lincoln; India without Gandhi; Africa without Mandela? When it comes to leadership, inspiration is more important than thinking, mobilization, or empowerment, although it is one of four components of what I call the TIME framework of leadership.

Each of these components corresponds to a different "campaign," a sequence of actions a leader undertakes to bring about collective action. Magicians are greatly skilled in leading "thinking" campaigns; lovers are naturals for "mobilization" campaigns; warriors for "empowerment"—including disempowerment—campaigns. And sovereigns like Obama excel in "inspirational" campaigns. In fact, I believe Obama`s recent trip to Europe provides a good case study of the do's and don'ts of such a campaign.

Obama inspired by actively listening, acknowledging, relating, confronting, setting boundaries, and defining an inescapable future—and in that sequence. He did not favor the new at the expense of the old; he did not favor friends at the expense of others; he was more concerned with impact than results. Obama impressed by listening to the arguments and demonstrating how much he knew of the issues on the agenda and how interested he was in understanding them. He solicited reactions to counterarguments that he offered and also took personal notes.

Understanding Others' Positions
Unlike Clinton, President Obama did not seek to relate mainly by warmth of personality and a sense of humor, but rather by his ability to understand the position of others. Several times, especially when talking either to audiences of younger people or in Turkey (a country with a Muslim majority), he used his personal story as the reason they should trust him. In doing so, he demonstrated that he knows that what sovereigns need most is trust and that the best shortcut to trust is the public admission of joint vulnerabilities. At no point did he apologize for American actions, but he did rely on the power of acknowledging mistakes—like starting the war in Iraq and starting the financial bubble—to create momentum for his campaign.

However, listening, relating, and winning trust are just the preliminaries of inspiration. The redefinition of what is possible ultimately necessitates confrontation. And, as every good lawyer knows, acknowledgment of the weaknesses in one's own case establishes credibility in confronting the arguments of others.

While in Europe, Obama confronted a lot of arguments—some of them advanced by Europeans, some of them previously espoused by American policymakers. He repeatedly confronted the long-standing American perception that the European Union is a mirage. The message of his several press conferences was a plea for responsibility rather than for compliance with the wishes of America. This disappointed some in the U.S., but made it easier for the Chinese to contribute $50 billion to the IMF during the G-20 meeting and for other countries to pledge 5,000 new troops for Afghanistan during the NATO meeting that followed.

He also confronted some entrenched European perceptions. The town hall meetings dispelled the perception that a dialogue with the U.S. is not possible. The pictures with the other G-20 and NATO leaders—where Obama did not just walk to the center front—made people think that the U.S. has the capacity to evince humility. In Turkey he set boundaries: He promised not to speak of the Armenian genocide but urged Turkey to open the frontiers with Armenia. He would support Turkey's entry into the EU but expected Turkey to grant minority rights to its Kurdish minority. These words could easily be interpreted as interference in domestic affairs, but the Turks understood that this President was not about carrots and sticks, but rather standards that he deems applicable across national frontiers and religious divides.

Emotional Steadiness
Obama loyalists in the U.S. called his trip a triumph. Almost all Europeans observers found the new President articulate and charming. "His personal style has a touch of the emperor and a touch of the rock star—but with an appealing humility that is common to neither profession" wrote the Financial Times. Even the left wing press extolled his intellectual thoroughness and emotional steadiness. Nobody doubted that Obama was genuine in his beliefs and indeed charismatic.

The fact that Obama came from lowly origins to occupy the most powerful office in the world enhances his charisma. However, despite Obama's qualifications and charisma, a lot of people on both sides of the pond remain skeptical. They are still looking for the idea that Obama represents. They are pointing to the lack of global agreement on how to fix the economy. They are wondering whether, even if Obama is the right man, he came at the wrong time to have any impact—given the decline in American economic power.

I believe the skeptics are missing the point: Obama came to Europe to inspire. He accomplished that by the boldness of his ambitions, which set him apart not only from his predecessor but also from the leaders he mingled with. He wants to shock the world economy back into action, abolish nuclear weapons, reconcile Christianity and Islam, and ultimately usher in an era of sustainable growth and responsibility. Focusing on standards comes to him naturally; this is how he has excelled.

Nobody laughed with him in the corridors of power, and nobody demonstrated against him in the streets. The American brand was greatly restored in the course of a week. This was the target of the short campaign.

Transformation of America
Restoring the American brand in Europe will not be enough for the new President to be successful. After all, Europeans will not vote in the next U.S. election. Obama has set high standards for himself: the transformation of America. Transformation cannot occur on inspiration alone. It takes a series of campaigns. Some will require new "thinking," like the Geithner plan. Some will require "mobilization," to refinance mortgages and to put people back to work. Some will require "empowering" the regulators and disempowering those who want to become too big to be allowed to fail. Each of these campaigns has its own requirements, begs for different teams.

It is not clear that Obama is himself capable to lead all these campaigns. He is, however, gifted in providing what most transformational efforts lack to their demise: a new Purpose. We have seen the limits of America as a superpower trying to change the world on its own. An era of responsibility and sustainable growth presupposes an America that strives for excellence for its own shake and sets the standards while pursuing it.>

via Businessweek

What Superstars look like

Came across a superbly talented profile recently, whom I thought possess all the attributes of someone who will go very very far in his career. Pity I did not have the chance to meet the guy, who was surfaced before I came into the firm. So how good is he?

Rapid rotation with increasing job responsibilities within his company: he did 5 roles in 5 years in 3 different countries, moving up from marketing to business development to business unit manager and finally Country GM. Having the opportunity to be located in the US, where the headquarters are, for a couple of years is another indicator of how much potential he is perceived to have by his company. And he is only 30 years old.

Good academic track record: INSEAD MBA says a lot. Having a good MBA tells people this much: you must beat stiff competition to squeeze into the top schools, so you must be pretty good.

For the softer aspects: the ability to marry dichotomies and a high IQ and EQ

Marrying dichotomies: A strong strategic orientation and the ability to get things done is a pretty powerful combination. Going into a business, sizing up quickly and accurately the business space, set strategic goals and articulate them well, getting the team along to deliver the goods… Management consulting types are usually good at the strategic and planning level but may not like or have the ability to get their hands dirty. Operational guys, on the other hand, may not have the strategic orientation. If you can do both equally well, you will be prized in any market. And if you are a techie (education and work experience) with the ability to translate technical stuff into business value, you are practically Kobe beef. Employers get very excited when they see someone like this.

High IQ and EQ: Being smart alone doesn’t carry one very far; there is only so much you can achieve alone. If you can demonstrate the ability to grow businesses and grow a team along with it, you can be sure you are on the way to somewhere. Having a high EQ doesn’t mean you make friends easily or have a wide social circle. It’s about how you can motivate and influence people around you to work towards a common goal, day in day out. Easier said than done, or else why would those “Influencer” books be flying off the shelves?

My struggle to make sense of things

People who do not receive affirmation from others will not give affirmation. True? It’s kind of like “pay it forward” but in a negative sense. But I guess if you do not have something for a while, your mind makes adjustments and you learn to live without it. And if you can live without it, then it will no longer feature in your mind/life. That’s what we call being “desensitized”.

So you want affirmation? Give it to others first.
So you want to feel appreciated? Appreciate others first.

It’s so easy to slip into a negative mode, switch off, do something nasty or “act tough” towards people who display the same behavior. But maybe I can choose to resist the temptation to switch to such defensive modes. I can choose to be nice, choose to care about others around me even though they may not feel the same towards me. But I am inclined to believe that we are humans after all and that makes us feeling, emotional beings. We all need to feel appreciated, cared for and loved by people around us.

So if I adopt this strategy and keep at it, maybe I would get a different reaction/treatment soon enough.

Never forget simple wisdom

via my funny eye

用良好感觉来建构自己信心

Do something small, something you like. Positive feelings will accumulate and this will be building blocks for your self-confidence.

Simple wisdom from Lianhe Zaobao (Chinese newspaper)

MBTI stuff

What do you do when your boss is an INTJ and you are an ISFP? So we have something in common: an I (which stands for Introverted) but everything else is the opposite. (iNtuitive vs Sensing; Thinking vs Feeling; Judging vs Perceiving).

So what is an INTJ? According to MBTI theory:

The Scientist

As an INTJ, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you take things in primarily via your intuition. Your secondary mode is external, where you deal with things rationally and logically.

INTJs live in the world of ideas and strategic planning. They value intelligence, knowledge, and competence, and typically have high standards in these regards, which they continuously strive to fulfill. To a somewhat lesser extent, they have similar expectations of others.

With Introverted Intuition dominating their personality, INTJs focus their energy on observing the world, and generating ideas and possibilities. Their mind constantly gathers information and makes associations about it. They are tremendously insightful and usually are very quick to understand new ideas. However, their primary interest is not understanding a concept, but rather applying that concept in a useful way. Unlike the INTP, they do not follow an idea as far as they possibly can, seeking only to understand it fully. INTJs are driven to come to conclusions about ideas. Their need for closure and organization usually requires that they take some action.

INTJ's tremendous value and need for systems and organization, combined with their natural insightfulness, makes them excellent scientists. An INTJ scientist gives a gift to society by putting their ideas into a useful form for others to follow. It is not easy for the INTJ to express their internal images, insights, and abstractions. The internal form of the INTJ's thoughts and concepts is highly individualized, and is not readily translatable into a form that others will understand. However, the INTJ is driven to translate their ideas into a plan or system that is usually readily explainable, rather than to do a direct translation of their thoughts. They usually don't see the value of a direct transaction, and will also have difficulty expressing their ideas, which are non-linear. However, their extreme respect of knowledge and intelligence will motivate them to explain themselves to another person who they feel is deserving of the effort.

INTJs are natural leaders, although they usually choose to remain in the background until they see a real need to take over the lead. When they are in leadership roles, they are quite effective, because they are able to objectively see the reality of a situation, and are adaptable enough to change things which aren't working well. They are the supreme strategists - always scanning available ideas and concepts and weighing them against their current strategy, to plan for every conceivable contingency.

INTJs spend a lot of time inside their own minds, and may have little interest in the other people's thoughts or feelings. Unless their Feeling side is developed, they may have problems giving other people the level of intimacy that is needed. Unless their Sensing side is developed, they may have a tendency to ignore details which are necessary for implementing their ideas.

The INTJ's interest in dealing with the world is to make decisions, express judgments, and put everything that they encounter into an understandable and rational system. Consequently, they are quick to express judgments. Often they have very evolved intuitions, and are convinced that they are right about things. Unless they complement their intuitive understanding with a well-developed ability to express their insights, they may find themselves frequently misunderstood. In these cases, INTJs tend to blame misunderstandings on the limitations of the other party, rather than on their own difficulty in expressing themselves. This tendency may cause the INTJ to dismiss others input too quickly, and to become generally arrogant and elitist.

INTJs are ambitious, self-confident, deliberate, long-range thinkers. Many INTJs end up in engineering or scientific pursuits, although some find enough challenge within the business world in areas which involve organizing and strategic planning. They dislike messiness and inefficiency, and anything that is muddled or unclear. They value clarity and efficiency, and will put enormous amounts of energy and time into consolidating their insights into structured patterns.

Other people may have a difficult time understanding an INTJ. They may see them as aloof and reserved. Indeed, the INTJ is not overly demonstrative of their affections, and is likely to not give as much praise or positive support as others may need or desire. That doesn't mean that he or she doesn't truly have affection or regard for others, they simply do not typically feel the need to express it. Others may falsely perceive the INTJ as being rigid and set in their ways. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the INTJ is committed to always finding the objective best strategy to implement their ideas. The INTJ is usually quite open to hearing an alternative way of doing something.

When under a great deal of stress, the INTJ may become obsessed with mindless repetitive, sensate activities, such as over-drinking. They may also tend to become absorbed with minutia and details that they would not normally consider important to their overall goal.

INTJs need to remember to express themselves sufficiently, so as to avoid difficulties with people misunderstandings. In the absence of properly developing their communication abilities, they may become abrupt and short with people, and isolationists.

INTJs have a tremendous amount of ability to accomplish great things. They have insight into the Big Picture, and are driven to synthesize their concepts into solid plans of action. Their reasoning skills gives them the means to accomplish that. INTJs are most always highly competent people, and will not have a problem meeting their career or education goals. They have the capability to make great strides in these arenas. On a personal level, the INTJ who practices tolerances and puts effort into effectively communicating their insights to others has everything in his or her power to lead a rich and rewarding life.

Jungian functional preference ordering:
Dominant: Introverted Intuition

Auxilliary: Extraverted Thinking

Tertiary: Introverted Feeling

Inferior: Extraverted Sensing

Via http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

Everything fits, like a glove. The funny thing is I don’t dislike him at all. The traits are so apparent that I can sort of immediately understand where he is coming from. Just that he gets on my nerves when he starts to adopt that tell-you-what-to-do attitude right up to the nitty-gritty. I don’t feel like there is no trust, because I understand where all that is coming from. But it still bruises my ISFP soul.

Food for thought

"If you do not have much imagination, you will be difficult to deceive."

~The Secret Adversary by Agatha Christie

This is totally random. I wrote about having a lot of fun with my Stanza app on iPhone and have been downloading all sorts of free ebooks to read. This sentence popped up when I was reading the thoroughly enjoyable writings of Agatha Christie, whose books I last read when I was in secondary school. I take the sentence to mean that if a person does not have the tendency to think too much or too deeply about things but instead takes them at face value, it may not be easy to mislead him, for very often the truth is not as complicated as we like to make it out to be.

就是实在

“。。人可以清楚记得过去的事，人可以专注 正在进行的事，而未来一定会来，不必着急，那不该是一头咄咄逼人的文明野兽。像这样的节奏，她就有充足时间去相信在自己身上发生过的一切，无论是美好的无 论是遗憾的，就像一针又一针那样实实在在。在这般节奏里，每样事物的开端与结束都能心平静气地历历可循。一件事情，就是一件事情，完了还能将感情像缝到最 后一针打个结那样有个完整句号。然后将整幅手艺拿起来瞧瞧，付出多少，一目了然。”
--- 吴韦才

不慌不忙，按部就班。专注于现在，把握眼前所拥有的一切，就是实实在在地活着了。

If you can call this a moral issue

In my line of work, there are times when I'm bound by the need to respect client's privacy and not allowed to disclose the full or even real story to candidates. This is especially so with regards to reasons for rejection, client company info etc. As far as I can stretch the constraints, I give the true story, although very often this requires a bit of creative crafting and paraphrasing to ensure that the interests of the client are not compromised in any foreseeable way. But sometimes, I'm forced to say half-truths, which objectively speaking is unavoidable since my loyalties lie with my clients, who are afterall paying us for our services. Not being able to be completely upfront all the time with my candidates makes me uncomfortable because it goes against my values, although I recognise the need to put the client's interests first. I did not foresee grappling with this issue when I first came into this industry and the irony is that one of the reasons my previous workplace irked me was the secrecy shrouding the work and how it shaped the people there. Like how you never knew the complete picture, the overused excuse of "compartmentalization" or the "tsk-tsk" that came from those brain-washed folks when you were caught saying things you weren't supposed to and how it made me felt like an embarrassed bad kid. Of course, there isn't anyone to do the "tsk-tsk" now but myself at myself, when I know I should be or should not be saying certain things. No matter what, I am equally uncomfortable when confronted with half-/untruths whether I'm the originator or recipient of them.

I have tried to come to terms with this and resolved to be as clear and upfront as possible to my candidates rather than take the easy way out and fob them off with lies or worse, stop all communication (like RMs running away from their clients in the current financial crisis). This is the only way where I can continue in this line of work and make something out of it.

Skinny times

Apparently, the latest wage survey showed that a quarter of the total workforce in Singapore earns SGD 1200 or less. That's more than a million folks here, although I'm not sure if this figure includes foreign labour. Anyhow, in times like this when food prices and other basic necessities like utilities bills and even transport costs are rising faster than ever, plus plenty of job insecurity, one doesn't know whether to try and save more or earn more. Both seem equally difficult.

How not to look like a porcupine

Couldn't resist copying this from a LinkedIn account user's profile page:

Contact Settings

I am generally receptive to being contacted if we have *common interests*, especially within my areas of specialty. I will also respond quickly if you have *clearly articulated* the reason for us to connect - no boiler-plate invitations please. However, you will find me quite protective of my network. Many are private and busy individuals, not super-connectors. Thus, make sure your introduction requests are *specific* and *directly relevant* to my network contacts.I am also very conservative when it comes to endorsements: I will only leave endorsements for people that I have directly worked with and have experience of their capabilities.

How friendly. Sometimes it's better not to be too frank about your thinking. And note the little *asterisks* (roll eyes).