Yes, they have a system with design and utility patents that is ~similar to the west. When you talk to local lawyers they always emphasise the importance of trademarks as the most effective way to protect your IP, but if you are have the budget getting patents could be good as well. The one thing to note is that you have to file a Chinese patent within a year of any other application worldwide. (I don't know nearly as much about this subject as I've learnt about trademarks, so caveat emptor.)
It's quite difficult to validate an idea, after FFF approved it and when you start development. In our startup we found it quite difficult to find the resources, where our target audience is located.
Bosses do, but the article does not necessarily provide any real solutions. The only clear thing to take away is "be aware that you may be causing a vicious cycle, and try to look out for that/get out of it" - which is a level of self-awareness that any semi-decent manager should have and keep in mind.
Management is a fundamentally messy and error-prone process, and dealing with differences in abilities is always hard and complicated :-/
The other thing about running organisations seems to be the "Anna Karenina principle" - all organisations that function really well are similar, but almost each organisation that fails fails in a different way.
Agreed; I guess my complaint could be best phrased as "the paper does not sufficiently address the complexities of determining whether you are in such a cycle, and the fact that many people that struggle actively search for more concrete guidance". This doesn't detract from the fact that it was a good read.
It is not universal, but I generally start from the assumption that a manager is an adversarial colleague, not a friendly one. They see their purpose as to protect their own position and move up the management chain. This article would be completely meaningless to such a manager.
This isnt a boss problem though, right? It's a problem of interaction between two people, where neither is expressing clearly what their real opinion is. There's a bit more responsibility on the person acting as boss to resolve it, as presumably he has a bit more experience with that kind of situation, but it's a two-way street.
As a manager, it is normal to be more directive with someone who is underperforming due to (perceived) lack of knowledge. You do need to be clear about you doing so though, and be clear about the path away from it.
I had a manager a long time ago who did it in a nice way. Our office was underperforming compared to the other offices he was managing, so he explained to everyone in an all hands meeting that he would be spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so once we were hitting delivery targets once more. No-one took offense to that, it was more "Ok, we are not performing at the level we need to be, and that means we will spend more time on control activities for a while, but to get out of that and back to our normal more laid back approach we need to do X, Y, Z."
The harmful situation is when you start spending more time on control activities without expressing why you are doing it and without explaining what the path out is. The responsibility for that is for sure on the boss, but also on the employee. If you are not asking "Ok, I have noticed this, why is that?" as an employee as well, then you are contributing to the situation and the downward spiral.
I have long believed that true communication is only possible between equals in a venue that everyone considers safe.
If you have the ability to significantly change someone else's life, they will produce submissive and defensive behavior just as though you had them actually pinned to the ground while baring your teeth. In the end, a manager is just a skilled laborer with a different set of skills.
There is no particular reason why the ability to organize a labor force should automatically result in authority over it. The manager does not always need to be the boss. I imagine that some business decisions would turn out differently if they had to be backed up with evidence and argument rather than authority and the threat of job loss.
Also, you can't lose sight of the fact that some people can do some things (like work independently) better than others.
Ability to work independently isn't the same thing as good performance either - comparing myself and a co-worker: I work best when given an outline of a 'business' problem and asked to create a technical solution, he works better when given explicit requirements with frequent checks that what he is making will solve the problem. But he writes faster, better code than me, and can quickly solve technical problems I'd find very difficult because he really knows his stuff.
My perception is, a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher because it is closer to what they understand and value in themselves.
But yeah, some under performance is to do with relationships, but other under performance is due to people doing work that doesn't suit them, or just not being very good.
The reason why a lot of non-technical managers rate ability to 'solve a business problem' higher is primarily because the business demands it. The managers' own performance is being judged by the delivery of the technical solution and his boss is likely to be driven by the success of the technical solution in addressing the business problem.
spending more time on control activities with the goal of getting back to not doing so
The latter half of this is the real big deal. Relaxed control as a reward for doing the "right" thing. Too often, especially in the public sector, the control measures are ever-tightening.
Uh, you may want to think some more about that. If your bosses are real humans, then some proportion of them will see this as criticism, which may hurt your position.
Do you make a distinction between "managing up" and "managing expectations"? I've always chosen to do the latter and view it as the same as "managing up" and your comment makes me realize that this might not be the only perspective.
I think of managing expectations to be only tangentially related to managing up.
I try to get into my manager's head. What are they worried about, what do they not care about, when is it best to present a solution, when is it best to avoid them.
Things as simple as planning on when to meet them is beneficial. E.g. if you want to get their actual feedback on something - schedule it early in the day (earlier in the week is a secondary consideration). If you want them to just agree with you, schedule it later the day, preferably on a Friday.
Want to work on a cool project with a cool technology that will advance your career? Plan for it. Research who the decision makers are, find out how to best influence them, build a polished presentation (could be a slide deck, or something else it depends on your company culture), learn the best way to "close" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_%28sales%29).
I could go on and on, but I hope that this helps.
It's up to you to manage your career. Nobody else is going to do it for you.
Setting expectations is what you do for things that are asked of you. Of all of the things that I have done and gotten "credit" for that have had an impact on my career, very few were things that I was asked to do. Setting expectations is about making sure the orders you are given are reasonable. I treat it as a tool I can use to ensure I have time to work on stuff that is actually important and will have a long lasting impact(not just to me, but also the company, I'm not a complete sociopath).
