自我管理打造長壽高效團隊
|
????舊金山巨人隊（San Francisco Giant）3年內(nèi)兩奪世界職業(yè)棒球大賽（World Series）冠軍，一時之間，棒球界驚呼新的霸主或已誕生。且慢——今年巨人隊的首發(fā)隊員中只有接球手巴斯特?波西是兩年前的首發(fā)隊員。一個團隊如果年年都在變，這樣的團隊怎么能持續(xù)稱霸？ ????有一句話可以回答這個問題，對于很多努力想提高自身團隊表現(xiàn)的公司而言，下面這個道理很重要、但同時也最容易被很多公司忽視：天下沒有不散的宴席。即便是再了不起的團隊也會散伙，團隊成員會在其他地方發(fā)現(xiàn)更好的機會。而且，這一點在那些優(yōu)秀的團隊身上尤其明顯。但仍有一些團隊能在不斷變換的過程中，一如既往地實現(xiàn)良好的團隊合作。我們都喜歡挑選最好的人組成團隊，但正如管理學(xué)權(quán)威拉姆?查蘭所述：“靠選不能打造出團隊?！比绻覀兒鲆暣蛟靾F隊持久優(yōu)勢這個更深層次的問題，不能超越成員層面，就難以收到好的效果。 ????從那些勇于拋開通行模式的非傳統(tǒng)機構(gòu)身上，可以找到一些啟迪。我們可以向消防員、急救室工作人員等非商業(yè)團隊學(xué)到很多，也可以向戈爾公司（W.L. Gore）、巴西的Semco、鋼鐵制造商Worthington Industries和世界最大的番茄加工商Morning Star等公司學(xué)習(xí)。這些高效率團隊最突出的特點是：它們完全實施自我管理。例如，在上面提到的這幾家公司中，幾乎沒什么人有職位頭銜：員工有權(quán)做出決定，無需咨詢（或者討好）老板。 ????傳統(tǒng)的管理學(xué)認為，這根本不可能，但這些公司幾十年來一直在發(fā)展壯大。它們是怎么做的？個體情況可能差異很大，但它們都形成了自己的方式來堅持同一關(guān)鍵原則。 （通常是非正式的）等級架構(gòu)完全基于競爭 ????沒有職位頭銜，但有領(lǐng)袖，而且每個人都知道他們是誰。他們就是為同事提供了最出色的服務(wù)、提供了最有用的點子、為團隊的成功工作最賣力、最有效的那些人。在戈爾公司，他們說，只要召集一次會議，看看是否有人來，就能知道自己是不是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。 ????就算是明確的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)位置，也完全是根據(jù)競爭力確定。比如，急救室團隊就嚴格遵守基于職務(wù)的等級制度：主治醫(yī)師居首，隨后是?？漆t(yī)生，之后是實習(xí)醫(yī)生。但沒有人質(zhì)疑這些職務(wù)反映了醫(yī)術(shù)水平。 目標明確 ????大多數(shù)企業(yè)團隊對于要實現(xiàn)的目標只有一個模糊的概念。而最高效的團隊總是明確知道目標。對于棒球場上的球隊或火災(zāi)現(xiàn)場的消防隊員，目標是什么簡單明確，但企業(yè)團隊也可以這樣明確。在晨星公司（Morning Star），正如策略泰斗加里?哈默爾解釋的那樣，每位員工都會與受其工作影響最大的同事協(xié)商簽署“諒解協(xié)議”。內(nèi)容非常具體，詳細列明將如何在多達30個領(lǐng)域中衡量這名員工的表現(xiàn)。如果每位成員完成這個步驟，整個團隊就會清楚地知道要實現(xiàn)什么目標。 |
????Talk of a dynasty swept the baseball world recently when the San Francisco Giants won their second World Series in three years. But hold on -- only one of this year's starting players, catcher Buster Posey, was a starter on the team that won two years ago. How can any team be a dynasty when it isn't even the same team from year to year? ????That question has an answer, and getting to it reveals one of the most important and most overlooked issues for companies struggling to get their own teams performing better: Teams don't last. Even great ones -- especially great ones -- break up as members spy opportunity elsewhere. Yet some organizations still manage to get long-term great teamwork from ever-shifting teams. We all rightly obsess over choosing the best members, but as management authority Ram Charan says, "Choosing does not build a team." We won't achieve much if we scant the far deeper issue of how our teams can build lasting strengths that transcend who's onboard. ????Enlightenment resides in unconventional organizations with the courage to ignore the usual models. We can learn much from nonbusiness squads such as firefighters and emergency-room crews, as well as from companies such as W.L. Gore, Brazil's Semco, steelmaker Worthington Industries, and Morning Star, the world's largest tomato processor. The most striking trait of these highly effective teams: They're radically self-managing. At all the companies mentioned above, for example, hardly anyone has a title; workers are empowered to make decisions without consulting (or courting) a boss. ????Orthodox management says it's all impossible, yet these companies have grown and prospered for decades. How do they do it? In widely different circumstances, they've all found their way to the same key principles. Hierarchy, often informal, is based entirely on competence ????There are no job titles, but there are leaders, and everyone knows who they are. They're the ones who have served their colleagues best, have offered the most useful ideas, and have worked hardest and most effectively for the team's success. At W.L. Gore, they say you find out if you're a leader by calling a meeting and seeing if anyone comes. ????Even in cases where leadership positions are explicit, they're still transparently competence-based. Emergency-room teams, for example, observe a strict hierarchy based on position: attending surgeons at the top, then fellows, then residents. But no one disputes that the positions reflect skill levels. Goals are clear ????Most corporate teams have only a hazy notion of what they're trying to achieve. The most effective ones always know exactly. That's easy for teams on a baseball field or at a burning house, but corporate teams can be just as clear. At Morning Star, as strategy guru Gary Hamel explains, every employee negotiates a "letter of understanding" with the colleagues who are most affected by his or her work. It's highly specific, detailing how the employee's performance will be measured in up to 30 activity areas. When every member finishes the exercise, that team knows precisely what it's on the hook to accomplish. |
最新文章