Today’s article in the Wall Street Journal on the Oracle-Sun Deals mainly talks about how a lot of businesses are skeptical of the Oracle-Sun deal. They view the deal as a sign that Sun’s hardware business will suffer and so they are open to considering alternatives. Rivals such as IBM, HP, and Dell are ‘feeding off’ of this uncertainty by offering discounts and other incentives to switch. The success of the rivals’ poaching efforts are manifesting in Sun’s declining revenue and market share (37% decline compared to 30% experienced by overall industry). I’m not sure what this means for Sun’s hardware business in the long-term though. It seems that Oracle will bundle their database and Sun hardware as package deals to customers where one can’t buy Sun hardware without purchasing their database? How will Oracle reduce fears of vendor lock-in and convince buyers that they will further invest in the hardware business, although Oracle has always been primarily a software company?

Micromanagers are only effective when they have incompetent staff.  But then why in the world would any manager retain incompetent staff?

Situation: An employee isn’t performing up to par (really slacking or screwing up).  His or her direct supervisor isn’t doing a good job managing the employee.

Q1: Who’s more at fault?

Q2: Should there be any disciplinary action? If so, how severe?

Q3: How would you rectify this?

currently listening to: Andras Schiff playing Mendelssohn’s Songs Without Words (selected)

While reading the Businessweek “Competition” Issue, I wondered how I measured up to my peers in terms of “competitiveness”.  Here’s what I know about myself (based on my experiences):

1.  I’m not very good playing second fiddle; i need to be el maestro. 

2.  I like to study people’s intentions, desires, and fears.  In short, I enjoy applying game theory to practically everything I do.  I believe these are essential for effective negotiating and understanding people. 

3.  Nothing motivates me more than when another underestimates me (I make them regret it).  Controlled anger can be a powerful force.  I’m usually at my best under those circumstances and believe me, nothing is more inspirational than the thought of my slighters/doubters wiping their own dung off their faces. 

4.  I’m not sure if this was by chance or what, but I don’t remember ever getting picked on by a bully.  There may have been non-bullies who tried to pick on me, but usually I got them to cut it out :)  

5.  You can’t put me on a hand (don’t even try).  I’ve had people tell me that they can ‘read’ me, but so far, those who’ve made such a claim have lost huge pots against me shortly afterwards. 

For the record, the above is simply my way of motivating myself to keep improving.  

I would rate myself a 9.5 out of 10 for ‘competitiveness’.  But is that necessarily a good thing? 

 Finished reading The 360 Degree Leader (audiobook).  In my opinion, it’s better to listen to books on Leadership rather than to read them. On the other hand, books on more technical subjects deserve to be read. So I went to the bookstore and picked up these two books–one on how blogs can be an effective marketing tool (Naked Conversations) and the other on Entrepeneurship (Never Bet The Farm) which focuses on dispelling myths about Entrepeneurs and best practices.    

 

One thing I’ve learned from poker is that it’s often more correct to play out different scenarios in your head than to compare the pros and cons of a situation. This is directly applicable to Business where making the right decision is king. While listing the pros and cons make for a good starting point, how many times have you wrote down your list of pros and cons and not seem to be getting anywhere? If pros and cons don’t seem to be helping you in your decision, then start playing out the different scenarios in your head (best case, worst case, and most realistic scenarios).

A couple weeks ago, I was characterized by a business colleague as being a ‘perfectionist’. Quite frankly, I’m not really sure how to take it. On one hand, that label could be construed as a compliment (e.g., having very high standards or detail-oriented). By the same token, however, it can be used as a euphemism for obsessive compulsive disorder, paranoia, being critical or opinionated about things, or someone who focuses too much on details and misses the objectives. While I’ll give that person the benefit of the doubt, my read on the situation is that a lot of it is due to my having a different ’style’ of management from that of an earlier generation (i’m in a ‘unique’ position at the company, which is why I can blog about this without fear of reprisal). But I do not consider my standards as being insanely high or higher than of those who have garnished success in their lifetimes.

I believe that every now and then we need to take an honest look at ourselves and see what we can do to make things better. I’ll be spending much of this week reflecting on 2005 in hopes of finding ways to improve myself so that I can make a difference. In some ways, 2005 was all a blur. I got sidetracked on a lot of things, but at the same time, I’ve learned a lot and have ventured into new hobbies/strategems that I believe will help me in my professional experiences.

Last night, I watched the dozen or so episodes from this past season’s The Apprentice (Trump version) (DVR-recorded). While I do like the show’s concept, I’ve been disappointed with the caliber of the contestants from the previous two seasons. However, after watching this past season’s The Apprentice , I came out quite impressed with some of the contestant’s personal attributes. Particularly with the finalists-Randal and Rebecca. Both have impressive backgrounds and education: Randal’s a Rhodes Scholar, has 5 academic degrees, MIT alum, a business owner; Rebecca’s 23, Chicago alum, financial journalist, started up a non-profit agency when she was 15, etc.

I didn’t watch the beginning of the first episode, so I don’t know how everyone found out about Randal’s exemplar academic background, but I wonder if the other contestants’ knowledge of his background helped him win points? Nonetheless, he was a very effective leader. He made very intelligent decisions, respected his teammates’ opinions and really backed up his credentials.

If there’s one thing that wasn’t highlighted on the show, it was the fact that Rebecca probably had it tougher in some respects because she had the catty blonde clique to contend with on her Capital Edge team–which could help explain why she had a 1 and 3 record as PM. Randal was more fortunate to work with a group of guys who seemed to get along for the most part (Clay was a real jerk at times, but I bet he sensed someone would kick his ass if he didn’t stop his antics; Marcus was a bit overly sensitive and could be a real slacker, but he knew when to shape up when it mattered). Still, both Randal and Rebecca pulled off some great performances in spite of the circumstances.

I definitely learned a lot from watching Randal and Rebecca lead and hope I can emulate some of their moves. I know I have potential, but I also need to plug some leaks in my own game by not committing the same gaffes that the weaker players such as Clay, Alla (sp?), Marcus, and Toral have been guilty of.