lizhenqiu blog

既然没有人吐槽，我就来个吧。
去过你的网站，看了你的网站介绍，那时候感觉这个人，心胸不大，傲气十足。以为自己一点儿点儿工具小子的技术就能改变世界。今天来访问了下这个傲气的名字，看了这个采访更加肯定了我的结论。你的言语加上你的历史教育加上你的人品，注定不会书写什么传奇，传奇的人都有一项必须要有的气质，那就是低调、大气。你没有，这是改变不了的。你的话也充分证实了这些，说了如图中国武侠小说的剧情，来为了烘托你的高大。来吧，期待一个没有缺乏黑客精神的小子，缺乏成熟感的小子看看能写出什么样的传奇。这样吧，先来段代码看看你的水平吧。

“猴子定律”或者叫“湿猴理论”的出处还是比较清楚的。大多数网站都提到，它出自一本名叫《为未来竞争（Competing for the Future）》的商业书籍。这本书的两位作者，一位是加里·哈梅尔（Gary Hamel），美国著名的管理学专家；另一位是普哈拉（C. K. Prahalad），密西根商学院的企业管理教授。他们在书里说，是从“一个朋友”处听来的实验。这个所谓的“实验”是否真实存在我们下文讨论。目前可以确定的是，将这个真实性存疑的“实验”写成通俗读本，引入大众文化圈的，正是这本商业管理领域的书籍。而最早将这个书本上的故事转载到互联网上是一家商业网站，他们则对这个故事有明确的定性，称它是一个“寓言”（fable）。
或许是受限于2000年之前网络的不发达，早先这个故事流传得并不广泛。直到21世纪，伴随着互联网的蓬勃发展，这个故事出现的频率越来越高，尤其是近三年。在传播的过程中，“湿猴理论”慢慢地发生了变化：人们不再提到它是从哪来的，也忘记了它本是一个商业寓言，而是将其描述得越来越像是真实的科学实验。
在论述这个“实验”之后，各家都有对它的解读：有的教育人们不要扼杀新人的积极性；有的拿这些猴子作为模型讨论企业文化；还有的从中看到了人性的险恶。不过不管细节怎么改变，“实验”的流程、结果都与《为未来竞争》中那个寓言大致是一致的。

但当《黑客2》结尾 Neo 像手挡子弹那样挡住章鱼机器人时，已明确告诉我们，Zion 也不是真实的，它只是程序空间的另外一部分。

这个推断没有一点逻辑，作为一个程序员，你不能跟我说1+1=2，所以中国的首都是北京。

人能不能控制机器？人和机器区别在哪？
人的定义是什么？人之所以为人是因为我们的身体，记忆还是虚无的思想与灵魂？
Neo和Smith都是程序，但却表达出人类的情绪，他们和人有什么区别？
人类与机器是否真的互不相容？人类的未来与机器的未来又在何方？

电影本身更多的是疑问，而不是答案，答案需要我们自我探索。Zion是真实存在的还是程序虚构的这个问题本身没有任何意义。

虽然从程序方面来理解却是有点意思，但是如果看完还不知道电影在探讨些什么，也就是过了把瘾而已。

需要说明的是,其实人类文明并不存在了,黑客帝国说的是一个纯机械文明.
机械文明在发展中,发现了一个他们最严重的缺陷,就是没有创新和改变的能力,所以他们开始培育人类,构建了一个Matrix系统,希望从这个系统中获取机械文明没有的特性.
但前几个版本都以失败告终,没有思想的人类毫无意义,完全给予自由思想的人类自我毁灭,最终的版本是采用了一种平衡和进化的模式,通过Architect和Oracle的平衡,允许系统中具有自由精神的人建立Zion,注意Zion是系统一开始就默认允许的模式而不是异类,然后通过Neo对Zion进行重置,获取这部分特异人类发现的系统漏洞,升级核心,然后进入下一个循环.

"熵"就是"无序化"的度量。考虑到"无序化"代表着混乱（实质是随机运动），可以得到三个重要结论：

结论1：如果没有外部能量输入，封闭系统趋向越来越混乱（熵越来越大）。比如，如果房间无人打扫，不可能越来越干净（有序化），只可能越来越乱（无序化）。

结论2：如果要让一个系统变得更有序，必须有外部能量的输入。

结论3：当一个系统（或部分）变得更加有序，必然有另一个系统（或部分）变得更加无序，而且"无序"的增加程度将超过"有序"的增加程度。

我当时是这样理解的：机器屏蔽了天空，采用培养液配置人类，通过人类为机器提供了能量，而有一个科学家创建了一个matrix矩阵--虚拟的世界。这个matrix 99.9%的程序都是好的，但是总会有0.1%的Virus & Bug让系统不稳定（就像用计算机表示 1/3 数字一样，可以无限接近0.333... 但是永远不会相等）。
所以，那个矩阵开发者又创建了“先知”（类似计算机监控程序）可以遇见未来。我感觉矩阵开发者是想通过先知来控制Nero的，但是他可能没想到，先知却选择和Nero站在了一边，解救了人类。
在黑客帝国里，Nero可以认为是计算机病毒必须要清除，而那趟地铁相当于BUG，通过那个BUG可以在现实和虚拟直接切换...

<script>
function getPara()
{
var u=document.location.href;
var arr=u.split("?");
return arr[1];
}
</script>
<a href="javascript:alert(getPara())">下一集</a>

“彦宏，竞价排名的市场只怕也接近饱和了吧……”

李彦宏心头微微一凛，神色不动。

“医疗方面的市场，还有很大的发展空间，”马化腾接着说道，“我想我们之间，可以建立起更深层次的合作。”

李彦宏心里冷笑，暗道：“哼，莆田系的大肥肉跑了，你马化腾的发展空间自然变得很大了。”

说出口的却是：“马兄有何高见，不妨指点一二。”

“彦宏，想必你也知道，微信的战略重心，已逐步转向了熟人社交；但是，我们仍然对陌生人社交这个领域，抱有浓厚的兴趣……
“现阶段我们设想的是，如何在移动互联网上，将医疗竞价推广和陌生人社交这两个发展方向打通。
“在竞价推广上，百度始终都是中国互联网的龙头老大；而陌生人社交，我们已经摸索出了一套较成熟的方案。如果你我有机会进一步合作，一定会开创出一个双赢的局面。”

李彦宏已大致猜测到了马化腾的想法，不由心头一动：“马兄的具体合作计划是？”

“李兄是个率直人，我就明说了。
“医疗竞价推广，之所以现阶段盈利空间被大大压缩，主要还是受到医疗市场本身的限制。如果我们把医疗市场做大，医疗竞价项目，自然水涨船高了……”
马化腾如此这般如此这般地说出了全盘计划，二人说得入港，不禁相视而笑，相拥……

6天后，微信新版本上线。人们惊奇地发现，“摇一摇”“查找附近的人”这些功能被放到了更显眼的地方，而在朋友圈里，也会随机推送同龄异性的朋友圈信息。得益于腾讯之前的用户数据采集，信息得到了更精准的配对，同城约炮的成功率大幅度提高。

"铁根，你真棒！"

“铁牛，我今天好快活！”

“翠花，你是一个真正的女人！”

“马总……不，云公子……下一次，我还要……”

但没有人知道，被优先放在页面上方的用户，全部都是在不久前查找浏览过性病方面信息的用户。

换而言之，患有性病可能性越大的人，约炮的成功率也越大。

也很少有人注意到，各医院皮肤科、妇科、泌尿科的患者激增。

“李兄，多谢你的鼎力相助！”马化腾微笑。

“是马兄的计划周详，干杯。”李彦宏露出了连日来难得一见的笑容。

两位互联网老大碰杯的时候，还没有意识到事情已经渐渐失控。

医疗设施的增设和医疗广告投放量增长，是线性的。但疾病一旦传播开来，感染人数却是呈指数化上升的。患有各类性病的人，从数十万上升至数百万，然后迅速飙升到千万级，并终于突破了亿字关口。然后随着出入境人员飘洋过海，在世界各地生根发芽，开花结果。

“化腾，你可能也会觉得有点痒？”

“天气原因吧？马达加斯加气候确实不好。”

（完。）

以下为周鸿祎演讲实录，：

前两天我们刚在西安做了次活动，我发现有个重要的变化，因为明明是房地产界的活动，我跟任志强、潘石屹在一起，他们俩讲的主题全部都是互联网。他们俩不断的论证说你看过什么《失控》吗？看过什么《必然》吗？最后搞的没办法，轮到我上台讲的时候，我只能讲讲房地产。

所以，大家现在知道，互联网的思想已经深入骨髓了吧？潘石屹都决定不卖房子了，他为了纪念当时的3Q大战，他非要创了个创业空间叫3Q。每次见到他的时候，我都发现他在不断的转型。

我今天放三炮，大家不要笑啊，今天很多段子不再是黄段子了，很多词都变了。比如约炮这个词吧，我本来也以为很负面，但听过徐小平跟我讲了是怎么回事。任志强最近办了一个节目叫《大炮有约》，所以我最近也想了想跟他们学学，要不然红衣大炮将要落后了。

第一炮：“穷人不能创业”是瞎扯

今天，我看到微信朋友圈有个文章，我觉得特傻帽的文章说《穷人不能创业》，你们说对还是不对？

（观众：不对！）

我很少骂人，我都忍不住想说“哪个傻帽写了这个文章呢？”，土豪就能乱做投资人吗？这个逻辑是非常错误的。

我个人认为，其实今天绝大多数创业者，我觉得都是穷人，对吧？包括徐小平原来不穷怎么会去新东方当老师呢？邓锋刚才讲了，他原来是清华的穷学生。所以，大家今天通过创业期望改变自己的状态，我觉得无可厚非。而且实话说今天很多成功的创业者，摇身一变，把自己描绘的非常高尚，好象他一出生就有这么高的思想，其实不是这样的。

我听过邓锋的分享，每个人创业早期都有穷人思维，都犯过很多错误，虽然我也经常骂创业者，因为我看到有些创业者让我着急。所以我觉得不能因为我们很多创业者比较幼稚，就说穷人不应该创业。如果穷人不应该创业，那我就不知道中国谁还应该创业呢？

他文章里，我随便举两个观点吧，拿这两个观点来批驳一下。

1、创业者没钱更能被激发潜力

第一，原文说，很多创业者因为穷惯了，花钱特别节省、特别吝啬，尽量老想不花钱办大事，就说如果不花钱能办事，那BAT花钱养那么多市场公关人员干什么呢？

我替他回答一下，因为我也有幸把360做成半大不大的公司，我觉得很多公司花了很多无用的钱，还办不成事。但注意！这是大公司的特权，不是创业公司的特权。我甚至对比过外面的小团队和大公司做同样产品的团队。发现，产品做好真的未必需要砸很多钱去推广。如果一个业务，最后要靠资本运作，最后比谁的融资能力强，我觉得这确实不适合穷人创业。

很多创业者在缺人少钱的情况下，才逼得自己去做更接地气的事情，才逼得自己做出极致的创新。包括我在我所带过的团队里，也可以举出很多反面例子，BAT就更不用说了，花了很多钱做推广，能遮掩很多问题，能雇无数多的人，所以很多人在里面只做一份工作。正因为有很多钱，所以大家产品不需要做的极致，照着别人抄一下够可以了。恰恰这两年你看，很多新锐的公司起来，在他年轻的时候，刚起步的时候，他们基本上都没有太多的钱。实际正是因为这种穷人思维、缺少资源的思维，才能把一个公司的潜力挖掘出来。

我最近在反思，我们搞所谓内部创业、内部孵化，有的时候我觉得是假创业。因为他跟创业者最大的差别，创业者会面临生死的问题，在生死压力前面，有的创业者可能就下去了，但有的创业者会被激发出无比的潜能，他就会绝路逢生，这样才能造就很强悍的创业者。相反在大公司内部，一个事儿做不好可以找无数的理由，因为公司的班车开的不及时，因为今天雾霾太重所以我不能太上班，只要跟老板解释了我可以异地再换个部门，或者再接个项目，没有生死的压力。

2、战略能否成功取决于所有细节的执行力

第二，这个作者显然不求甚解，他抓住另外一个人说的话，他的意思说，有些创业者太刻苦，每天只知道勤奋工作，所以他就觉得这些人就不会思考。他说，不要用战术的勤奋来掩盖战略的懒惰。

这句话对吗？我告诉你，这句话貌似说的很有道理，但它绝对不是说你不要勤奋。只是说，你不能只是埋头拉车，每隔一段时间要花点时间抬头看路。但是，即使你有正确的战略，战略用一句话就能表述出来“干什么、不干什么”，就决定了你的方向，伟大的战略能不能成功，要取决所有细节上的执行。而细节上的执行力，实际上来源于你对很多细节的把握，你要把握很多细节就要非常勤奋和辛苦。他说他从雷军身上总结的，但雷军同志恰恰是这个行业里最勤奋的劳模了。乔布斯传里面真实的细节，对一个图标里的每个颜色，都能看出来不一样，你说他累不累？他绝对是累死的，他能够不勤奋吗？

所以我觉得，今天在这个世界上，聪明的人当然成功的概率会大一点，但是聪明的人如果比你还勤奋，那你是不是要更勤奋？所以，今天早上我看了这篇文章，我就随便挑了两个观点，比较恶劣的是在微信里面传，我觉得对我们的三观会有破坏。

所以，这是我放的第一炮，不服来战啊！

第二炮：中国缺乏创业的价值观，O2O已经被玩成了资本游戏

下面，我还是想对创业者泼点冷水，我最近看了一个VC，这个VC是创业实战出身，他说你作为一个创业公司的CEO，在接近客户、运作市场，这两件事方面，一定不能假手他人，一定要亲力亲为，只有这样你才能把握最真实来自一线的信息，你才能做出判断。

所以，我觉得我们的创业者，确实要定期花点儿时间去想一想，但实际上你想半天有时候想不出来，你还不如更踏踏实实的把握现在，通过勤奋的工作，获得更多感性认识，为你下一步做出正确判断打下基础。

再一个，最近很多人说到了投资的寒冬。其实我倒没觉得，我觉得不好的项目，最终他会露馅的，台风没有了猪都会摔死的。所以，我今天依然觉得，有技术含量的、真正创新的项目，依然会遭到投资人的追捧。

但是我们反思，有这种泡沫的时候，很多人把这个责任，推到了政府身上，说中关村的咖啡大街的咖啡凉了，还推到邓锋这样的VC身上，说他原来说投的，怎么不投我了？

所以，对创业者提出几点建议，这也是这半年来很多创业者让我觉得比较困惑的地方。

1、缺乏创业价值观

我一直说中国不缺创新的人，今天也有很多钱，但中国能不能成为美国硅谷那样全世界真正的创新中心？我觉得外在条件都具备，唯一缺的是价值观。就是我们到底为什么创业？如果我们今天的乔布斯排行榜一样，论谁更有钱，谁的身价高，谁的市值高，以这个来论，我觉得这种三观对创业者的创新是不支持的。

媒体天天渲染的创业英雄，不谈他们的产品，不谈他们总结的经验教训，谁融到资谁就是英雄，谁融到的价值高谁就牛逼，大家都比谁拿多了多少钱，马上就成为大家追捧的对象，包括对公司的评价，也都脱离了产品，都在谈融资，我觉得这是个错误的价值观。我一直觉得，融资是个手段，只是一瞬间的数字，最终企业成不成功，如果融资你的企业就成功了，今天我觉得很多人就成功了。

所以，不忘初心，创业者拿到了钱，使我们继续在市场上活下去，我们还是要把心思放在做产品上。

我就不点名了，本来有一家企业我还是很推崇，不忘初心，他们也许能把手机做的非常好，而且他们真的通过营销创新，也做的非常好。但自打他们给自己了一个很高融资额之后，自己给自己背上了很重的包袱，就变成了资本的奴隶（这个企业指小米？）。从旅行箱到旅行包，反正什么都做，所以就给了华为巨大的机会。所以，即使这么伟大牛逼的企业家，背上了资本的包袱以后，他们的很多动作、决策都是要变形的。

所以，别说各位是创业企业，就是今天很大的企业，江南春也有这样的感受，如果完全掉到估值融资数目来评价，就会忽略你的初心。

2、创业者事情还没做成，便开始宣讲成功经验

一个创业者如果完全闷头在家里，当然他没有交流的机会，他可能是在重复走别的创业者走过的错误速度。孵化器、加速器，美国现在跟中国一样，有无数多的创业盛会，后来我就发现有点儿变味了，很多创业者都没挣到钱，像这种创业辅导机构都挣到钱了。原来做传销的、做大众培训的，都在教大家什么是互联网思维，这种创业会多到什么程度？每天只要你愿意，大概一天在北上广深这几个地区，一天创业者什么事儿都不干，参加四五个会是没有问题的。

现在很多创业者，事情还没有做一点，直接到会上直接宣讲自己的成功经验。事情还没有做成，开始宣讲自己创立的这个O2O的模式，那个创新的模式。我稍微觉得有点儿过，因为作为一个创业者，我认为适度的交流是可以的，但你应该花更多的时间和你的团队在一起、用户在一起。

扪心自问，这样听听交流一下，真正就能解决你创业的很多问题吗？其实我觉得不能，最重要的是想着你自己的产品该怎么做。而且，很多创业者在开这个会的过程中，不自觉的产生了一种错觉。今天到会场的有多少人？也不过就几千人，加上场外的有几万人，你一上台掌声雷动，你马上以为自己就是人之骄子，万众瞩目的中心，其实就把这几万人都发展成你的用户又怎么样呢？跟中国的几亿用户相比，这只是万分之一。

所以，当创业的热潮越热，自己反而要能够冷静下来，保持适度的距离，在听别人讲完之后要有自己的时间去做思考，要有点儿定力，不能够听了讲的这些东西，就去东施效颦，弄不好就是邯郸学步。

3、O2O被玩成了资本游戏，收拾烂摊子的还是创业者

我最近在研究O2O，开始很多O2O的很多模式我开始看不懂，用常识做判断是有问题的。比如，补贴，我忽悠了这么多年免费，他们现在青出于蓝胜于蓝，不是免费都是补贴。

我下次见总理的时候，或者见总书记的时候，我特别希望给他提一句，我说你要奖励像邓锋、沈南鹏为首的VC，他们把几百亿美元投给了创业者，这是一种什么精神？这是共产主义精神、国际主义精神。而这几年北上广深的创业者大家真的没含糊，都没有把几百亿美金留给自己，全部补贴了北上广深的人民生活。

比如，徐小平投了很多什么免费请你看电影的，免费给你上门做按摩的，免费做早餐的。所以，看的我也眼花心乱。所以，后来我也想明白了，因为人家说我们真的不在乎挣钱，我们钱花出去能融来更多的钱。

但是我想，按照这种游戏规则玩儿就会变得非常不好玩了。红杉开一个年会让我去讲讲话，说让我给大家鼓鼓劲，我一看，一个月赔10个亿的这些牛逼公司都在场。所以我上台就讲了三句话：第一句说，同志们！世界未来是属于你们的！然后他们就欢声雷动、雀跃不已，我就说了第二句，也是属于BAT的，他们就不出声了，他们说为什么？我说你们最终也是属于BAT的，最后只有BAT有余粮，就被他们收了。所以，最后大家都玩儿成了资本的游戏，当然就都是是BAT的了。这游戏好玩吗？我觉得未必，因为能被BAT看上的也就那么几家吧。

所以我就觉得，资本永远不是我们的目的，我们的商业模式永远不能是to VC和to BAT的。还是要回归商业的本质，尽管有些VC为了他们投资更重要，VC今天也要学会做公关，说我们专投90后，我知道徐小平对90后美少女是非常感兴趣的，主要他要了解90后啊。

但我真的也认为，90后比我们更有锐利、更没有束缚、更了解市场一线的情况，但做到最后，您毕竟是做一个商业公司，做商业的本质，还是要在产品之上建立可持续的营收模式。所以，最近几年的泡沫跟创业者的心态，也要做适度的调整。

我们就上门洗车、上门按摩、上门做饭，我觉得大家有点儿误解，我们讲用户至上，是说你要去研究用户的行为和习惯，我一直认为教育用户是比较困难的事情，而教育用户的习惯，顺势而为是产品比较成功的关键。

在手机和电脑里面，我们做一个软件，因为对用户来说这意味着他有一个学习的过程，他必定认为这是个新东西。所以，有的时候我们在软件里面做个修改，还能引导用户。但你做生活服务和互联网相结合的时候，用户在生活服务方面都不是小白，他一定是个成熟的用户，他一定会有他日常生活的习惯。

所以，当你打着用户至上的幌子，但你提供的产品和服务，却完全违背了用户的常识，那么这种就不是用户至上，实际说明你是在把自己的想法，强加给用户。

比如说，最早上门洗车的案子我见了不少，我虽然也不太懂车。很简单，你觉得它真的是你日常生活中的习惯吗？你真的觉得上门去带块破抹布到他们家把车擦一擦用户就有很好的体验吗？实际上，很多业务并不适合用Uber的模式去延展。

免费，之所以在互联网里成为一种战略，那是因为我的成本是固定的，越多的人用，我的边际成本会趋近于零，这样免费才能成为一种战略。所以，微信、360安全软件、搜索可以免费，但是当你在现实生活中做所谓O2O的时候，无论是送电影票还是给人送早餐，还是上门提供“大保健”服务，你服务的人越多，你的成本就越高，甚至你要考虑这个人上门的成本、交通的成本、物流的成本。也就是说，在这种情况下，免费只能成为一种战术，不能成为一种战略，免费只是一种营销手段，因为长期免费下去，用户随着成本的增加，就无法控制，就违背了商业常识。

所以，很多人期待把互联网的免费盲目扩大化，通过免费+倒贴，养成一个用户从来不会养成的习惯，这有可能不成功。通过免费把对手干死，然后再改收费。我告诉你，中国的用户一旦吃了免费的午餐，再回头是很难的。

这种过于激进的模式，就带来了大家感受到的泡沫。所以，资本寒冬的泡沫是什么？就是大家太急于求成了，大家希望把十年干成的事恨不得在十个月干成，再加上资本的压力和诱惑、绑架，就使得你很多动作变形。

这对VC很简单，比如沈南鹏前两天突然讲的就跟原来不一样了，他说我们已经一年没有投O2O了。第二，他要开始投高科技公司了。所以，VC转型比你们转型的要快，风向不好他马上就不投这个领域。

最后，谁在收拾这个烂摊子呢？还是创业者，所以互联网思维没有错，但不能盲目用在任何领域。

今天时间有限，就跟大家放了两炮，我还有第三炮就算了，谢谢大家！

I recently had an interesting discussion with a colleague. We were recounting our job histories and how our, shall we say colorful personalities, could have negatively impacted us long term. The truth is, I was kind of an asshole coming out of college (some would argue I’m still kind of an asshole, but that’s beside the point). I was arrogant and bitingly sarcastic, a generally irreverent character. I thought I knew it all and was quite proud of myself for it.

I had a habit of telling more experienced engineers that they were doing things wrong, and despite being right most of the time, I didn’t have the personality to make it effective. During one particularly engaging conversation, one of the senior engineers stopped and said, in these exact words, “I’m going to f***en beat the shit out of you if you don’t shut up.” I laughed it off because I knew he wouldn’t dare, and only years later did I realize the relevance of that statement: it was actually what he wanted to do.

Since that time I’ve grown up a lot, learned to watch what I say, and treat people with respect regardless of defining characteristics. The sarcasm stays in check while in a professional environment; I let it out to play when I’m with good friends. This self-control, along with a lot of other invaluable lessons, came to me not of my own accord, but through the careful guidance of the mentors I’ve had along the way. If not for them, who knows if my interpersonal relationships would have short-circuited my career.

The truth is that I have been incredibly blessed in my career because of the people I’ve come into contact with. My managers along the way molded a really rough-around-the-edges character into someone I’m proud to be. More than that, because of their influence, I’m not just a good programmer – I’m a good teammate and a good person. So impactful were these people on my life that I frequently recount their advice to the colleagues that I now mentor.

I also find their advice to be universally applicable, so I’d like to share the things I was told that helped me along the way. Of course, some of these are paraphrased since my memory for exact phrases isn’t all that great, but I believe I’ve captured the important parts correctly.

Don’t be a short-order cook

My very first job lasted 8 months because the company shut down. As I was talking with my manager about what I would do next, he gave me this advice:

Nicholas, you’re worth more than your code. Whatever your next gig is, make sure that you’re not a short-order cook. Don’t accept a job where you’re told exactly what to build and how to build it. You need to work somewhere that appreciates your insights into the product as well as your ability to build it.

This is something I’ve kept in mind throughout my career. Simply being an implementer isn’t good enough – you need to be involved in the process that leads up to implementation. Good engineers don’t just follow orders, they give feedback to and work with product owners to make the product better. Fortunately, I’ve chosen my jobs wisely and never ended up in a situation where people didn’t respect or value my insights.

Self-promote

My second manager at Yahoo pulled me aside one day to give me some advice. He had been watching my work and felt like I was hiding a bit:

You do great work. I mean really great work. I like how your code looks and that it rarely breaks. The problem is that others don’t see it. In order for you to get credit for the work you’re doing, you have to let people know. You need to do a bit of self-promotion to get noticed.

It took me a little while to digest what he was saying, but I finally figured it out. If you do good work, but no one knows that you did good work, then it doesn’t really help you. Your manager can back you up but can’t make your case for you. People within the organization need to understand your value, and the best way to do that is to tell people what you did.

This is advice I give to many of my colleagues now. Self-promoting doesn’t mean, “look at me, I’m awesome.” It means letting people know when you’ve hit major milestones, or when you’ve learned something new. It means showing people the work that you’re proud of. It means celebrating your accomplishments and the accomplishments of others. It means being visible within the organization. The engineer who sits quietly in a corner and just codes away is always a bit mysterious – don’t be like that. A quick email to say, “hey, I finished the new email layout. Let me know what you think” goes a long way.

It’s about people

I was very title-driven earlier in my career. I always wanted to know what I had to do to be promoted. During my first one-on-one with my new manager on the Yahoo homepage, I asked what it would take for me to get promoted. His words still ring in my ears:

At a certain point, you stop being judged on your technical knowledge and start being judged on the way you interact with people.

I’m not sure I’ve ever received a better insight into the software engineering profession since that time. He was exactly right. At that point, no one was questioning my technical ability. I was known as a guy who wrote good, high-quality code that rarely had bugs. What I lacked was leadership skill.

Since that time, I’ve seen countless engineers get stuck at one level in their career. Smart people, good code, but the inability to work effectively with others keeps them where they are. Anytime someone feels stuck in their software engineering career, I recount this advice and it has always been right on the money.

None of this matters

I went through a period at Yahoo where I was frustrated. Maybe frustrated isn’t the right word, more like angry. I had angry outbursts and was arguing with people constantly. Things were going wrong and I didn’t like that. During one particularly rough day, I asked one of my mentors how he managed to stay calm when so many things were going wrong. His response:

It’s easy. You see, none of this matters. So some crappy code got checked in, so the site went down. So what? Work can’t be your whole life. These aren’t real problems, they’re work problems. What really matters is what happens outside of work. I go home and my wife is waiting for me. That’s pretty nice.

I had moved to California from Massachusetts and had a hard time making friends. Work was my life, it was what kept me sane, so when it wasn’t going that meant my life wasn’t going well. This conversation made me realize I had to have something else going on in my life, something I could go back to and forget about the troubles I had at work.

He was right, once I shifted my mindset and recategorized the annoying things at work as “work things,” I was able to think more clearly. I was able to calm down at work and have much more pleasant interactions with people.

Authority, your way

When I was first promoted to principal engineer at Yahoo, I sat down with my director to better understand what the role entailed. I knew I had to be more of a leader, but I was having trouble being authoritative. I asked for help. Here’s what he said:

I can’t tell you how to be authoritative, that’s something you need to figure out on your own. Different people have different styles. What you need to do is find a style that you can live with, that makes you comfortable. I can’t tell you what that is, but you do need to find it for this position.

I spent a lot of time that year observing people of authority and how they interacted with others. I took note as to how they walked, how they talked, how they dealt with problem situations. I tried different styles before I finally came across one that worked for me. My style is uniquely me and anyone learning to be in a position of authority has to go through the same growing pains. My advantage was that my mentor clued me about the process up front.

Moving from “how?” to “what?”

During a conversation with my manager at Yahoo, I asked what the expectations were with my new position. He answered:

To this point in your career, you’ve answered the question, “how?” As in, we tell you what needs to be done and you figure out how to do it. At this point, though, you need to answer the question, “what?” I’m expecting you to come and tell me what needs to be done.

This is the part where I see a lot of engineers get tripped up, and I would have as well if not for this piece of advice. Switching from “how?” to “what?” is very hard and takes time to develop. It also takes a bit of maturity to be left to your own desires as to what you focus on. After all, if you can spend your time on anything you want, you are also solely responsible for what you produce.

At Box, we call this “running open loop,” meaning that you do your job with minimal oversight and yet still are making a significant positive impact on the engineering organization and the company as a whole. This is the step where many engineers fail to make the leap, and I still give this advice to anyone who is trying to get to the next level.

Act like you’re in charge

I had just sat through a meeting where I had nothing to say. During my one-on-one with my director, I mentioned that I was just in a meeting where I had no idea why I was there and had nothing to contribute. He said:

Don’t ever do that again. If you’re in a meeting, it’s because you are there to participate. If you’re not sure why you’re there, stop and ask. If you’re not needed, leave. You’re in a leadership position, act like it. Don’t go quietly into a room. Just act like you’re in charge and people will believe it.

In that piece of advice, my mentor had reminded me of a lesson I learned while acting in high school: no one knows when you’re acting. If you’re nervous but act like you’re not, then people won’t know that you’re nervous. The same with leadership. The old phrase fake it til you make it comes to mind. From that point on, I never sat quietly in a meeting. I made sure I only went to meetings that needed me to participate and then I would participate.

Let them win

I went through a particular period where there were a lot of arguments on the team. I prided myself on ending those arguments with authority. I had a “my ruling is final” mentality, and my manager noticed that and gave me this piece of advice:

I see a lot of arguing going on, and I see you pushing through to win a lot. I know that most of the time you are right, but every once in a while let them win. Pick the things that really matter to you and push for those but let the other things go. There’s no need to win every argument.

This was one piece of advice I resisted initially. I was right nearly all of the time, why would I ever let someone else win? However, as I had grown to trust his instincts, I gave it a shot. The result: there were less arguments. People didn’t feel like they had to get one over on me, and in turn, I became better at identifying things I really didn’t care that much about. I stuck to my guns on important issues and let the others ones get resolved by the other party. The intensity of all conversations dropped considerably.

Conclusion

Looking back at the brash guy I was when I graduated college, my career could have ended up very different. I was seen as a malcontent, a smart but hard-to-deal-with guy who people dealt with because they had to. If it weren’t for the mentors I had along the way, as well as some humbling failures early in my career, my interpersonal skills (or lack thereof) could have very well done me in. These days, I regularly seek out those who are more experienced than me and ask for advice. I may no longer make big, glaring mistakes, but I also don’t want to wait for one to happen to seek out the experienced insights of someone I trust.

The nearly five years I was at Yahoo were some of the most transformative in my career. I got to work on interesting problems at a large scale, but moreso I was blessed with a series of wonderful managers and other mentors within my organization. I credit those conversations with turning me into a person that I’m proud of today, both at work and outside in “real life.”

If I can leave you with one overriding piece of career advice, it would be this: identify someone at your work that is smarter than you in some way (technically, organizationally, etc.) and attach yourself to them. See if you can regularly have lunch or coffee and pick their brain for the vast amount of knowledge it has. Your career, and maybe even your life, could end up drastically better by doing so.