企業(yè)文化必須動真格
????格雷格?史密斯從高盛(Goldman Sachs)辭職一事鬧得沸沸揚揚,如今,事情已經(jīng)過去了幾周時間。華爾街的反應(yīng)大多是認為史密斯心懷不滿才做出這么出格的舉動,這種事可能發(fā)生在我們?nèi)魏我粋€人身上。從這種反應(yīng)來看,這起事件中最重要的教訓(xùn)似乎完全被忽視了,而它恰恰是最不能動搖的商業(yè)法則。 ????事實上,軟文化和硬數(shù)據(jù)一樣重要。如果不想讓公司文化流于形式,就必須公開懲戒那些膽敢破壞公司文化的員工。我們知道,這并不容易。但建立健康正直的企業(yè)文化絕非兒戲。由于各種原因,太多太多的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者認為,公司價值觀只是人力資源部和新員工之間的五分鐘談話,又或者他們認為,公司文化只是大廳匾牌上的文字游戲,比如我們是“敬重”我們的客戶,還是“尊重”他們?簡直是胡扯。 ????企業(yè)文化與用詞無關(guān)。它與行為以及行為的后果有關(guān)。它意味著每個管理者深知自己的關(guān)鍵職責是捍衛(wèi)企業(yè)的價值觀,就像捍衛(wèi)薩班斯-奧克斯萊法案一樣。它是每次對員工進行業(yè)績考評既看業(yè)績數(shù)字,也看價值觀。考核只有四類結(jié)果。 ????首先是業(yè)績數(shù)字和價值觀都優(yōu)秀的員工——留用,晉升。數(shù)字和價值觀都糟糕的員工——出局。 ????價值觀優(yōu)秀但業(yè)績平平的員工——再給一次機會,接受進一步培訓(xùn)。良好的行為讓他贏得了第二次機會。 ????剩下來的,就是那些總是讓公司無奈讓步的員工:業(yè)績數(shù)字優(yōu)秀但價值觀糟糕的員工。這些員工從不和同事分享想法,背后瞧不起客戶,對上級溜須拍馬,對下屬驕橫跋扈——但同時又業(yè)績斐然。 ????90%的情況下管理者會讓這些人輕松過關(guān)?!拔抑兰肪褪莻€大混蛋,”他們說。“但在經(jīng)濟形勢穩(wěn)定下來之前,我需要他?!被蛘摺皼]錯,薩莉的態(tài)度讓每個人都不高興,但我已經(jīng)和她談過了。我想她會改的?!?/p> ????事實上,吉姆和薩莉的所作所為都給其他員工發(fā)出了一個大大的信號:我們公司的價值觀純粹就是一句空話。唯一的糾正辦法是讓吉姆和薩莉離職,而且不能用律師和人力資源部慣用的措辭:“他們希望能有更多的時間來陪伴家人?!倍且f出真相:“吉姆和薩莉的業(yè)績非常出色,”但同時要告訴所有人,“但他們沒有體現(xiàn)公司的價值觀?!蔽覀儽WC這樣的公開“聲明”會比首席執(zhí)行官發(fā)表一百遍演講,反復(fù)強調(diào)“我們的價值觀真的、真的非常重要”還要來得更有效果。 ????史密斯事件發(fā)生在華爾街,但我們討論的問題已遠遠超出了曼哈頓下城范圍。從東海岸到西海岸,“價值觀失衡”在各行各業(yè)的公司中都普遍存在。員工們要么不知道公司的價值觀是什么,要么認為公司價值觀履不履行無所謂。不管是哪一種,結(jié)果都是公司容易受到來自內(nèi)部和外部的沖擊,而且理應(yīng)如此。 ????眾所周知,所有的管理學(xué)課程都說,一家公司手中最有效的競爭武器是強大的企業(yè)文化。但問題在于執(zhí)行的細節(jié)。如果執(zhí)行環(huán)節(jié)出了問題,就必須付出慘重的代價。 ????譯者:早稻米 |
????It has been weeks now since Greg Smith's blistering public resignation from Goldman Sachs (GS). But based on Wall Street's reaction -- that Smith was a disgruntled rogue, and that it could have happened to any one of us -- it seems that perhaps the case's most important lesson is being missed. And it happens to be one of the most immutable rules of business. ????In fact, soft culture matters as much as hard numbers. And if your company's culture is to mean anything, you have to hang -- publicly -- those in your midst who would destroy it. It's a grim image, we know. But the fact is, creating a healthy, high-integrity organizational culture is not puppies and rainbows. And yet, for some reason, too many leaders think a company's values can be relegated to a five-minute conversation between HR and a new employee. Or they think culture is about picking which words -- do we "honor" our customers or "respect" them? -- to engrave on a plaque in the lobby. What nonsense. ????An organization's culture is not about words at all. It's about behavior -- and consequences. It's about every single individual who manages people knowing that his or her key role is that of chief values officer, with Sarbanes-Oxley-like enforcement powers to match. It's about knowing that at every performance review, employees are evaluated for both their numbers and their values, and that only four outcomes exist. ????First, for employees with good numbers and good values -- onward and upward. For those with bad numbers and bad values -- you're outta here. ????As for employees with good values but mediocre numbers -- the stance should be, we'll give you another chance with more coaching. Your behavior has earned you that. ????Which leaves the type of employee who most commonly brings companies to their knees: the one with the great numbers and crummy values. The employee who doesn't share ideas with co-workers, who belittles customers behind their backs, who kisses up to the hierarchy but kicks down his own people -- all while bringing in the numbers. ????Ninety percent of the time, managers give these people a big fat pass. "I know Jim can be a real jerk," they say, "but I just need him until the economy stabilizes." Or "Sure, Sally's attitude upsets everyone, but I've spoken to her. I think she's going to come around." ????Actually, all Jim and Sally are doing is sending a big fat message to every other employee: Our company's values are a joke. And the only antidote is that Jim and Sally need to be sent home, and not with the usual "They want to spend more time with their families" BS out of the lawyers and HR, but with the truth. "Jim and Sally had great numbers," everyone needs to be told, "but they didn't demonstrate the values of this company." We guarantee that such a public "diss play," to put it more politely, will have more impact than a hundred "Our values really, really matter!" speeches by the CEO. ????The Smith case occurred on Wall Street, but, to be clear, we're talking about a problem that exists well beyond the canyons of lower Manhattan. "Values drift" is pervasive in companies of every ilk, from sea to shining sea. Employees either don't know their organization's values, or they know that practicing them is optional. Either way the result is vulnerability to attack from inside and out, and rightly so. ????Look, it's Management 101 to say that the best competitive weapon a company can possess is a strong culture. But the devil is in the details of execution. And if you don't get it right, it's the devil to pay. |
-
熱讀文章
-
熱門視頻