成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

1984年，米爾頓·莫斯科維茨與羅伯特·列弗寧首次出版了作品《美國(guó)最適合工作的100家公司》（The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America）。直至今年3月5日逝世，莫斯科維茨一直相信更好的職場(chǎng)會(huì)造就更好的公司。他的創(chuàng)舉是把針對(duì)數(shù)百萬(wàn)個(gè)員工的調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)化為職場(chǎng)創(chuàng)新的故事。這些故事實(shí)在引人入勝，以至于管理者開始紛紛關(guān)注這一榜單，并力爭(zhēng)在榜單上占有一席之地。

莫斯科維茨堅(jiān)信，美國(guó)的最佳職場(chǎng)能夠給其他公司帶來(lái)重要的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。他的信念幫助促成了一個(gè)新的聯(lián)邦機(jī)構(gòu)誕生。推廣最佳職場(chǎng)實(shí)踐給公司帶來(lái)的幫助，似乎就像農(nóng)業(yè)推廣服務(wù)給農(nóng)業(yè)帶來(lái)的幫助一樣。為了應(yīng)對(duì)愛爾蘭大饑荒，Pioneered in Ireland應(yīng)運(yùn)而生，推廣員組織農(nóng)民交換信息和技能以促進(jìn)生產(chǎn)。在克林頓執(zhí)政初期，我想知道政府能否采用類似的做法改善美國(guó)職場(chǎng)？

勞工部長(zhǎng)提名人羅伯特·賴克相信我們可以做到。他認(rèn)為，勞工部不僅應(yīng)該收集關(guān)鍵經(jīng)濟(jì)數(shù)據(jù)、執(zhí)行辦公場(chǎng)所標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、為培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目籌措資金，還應(yīng)該分析和推廣那些給小時(shí)工提供培訓(xùn)和激勵(lì)的優(yōu)秀職場(chǎng)。從1993年到1996年，勞工部建立了美國(guó)職場(chǎng)辦公室（Office of the American Workplace）。它和莫斯科維茨的理念一致，相信偉大的公司與員工心連心。我?guī)椭鷦裾f(shuō)賴克成立了這一機(jī)構(gòu)，并被任命為它的主任。

賴克提出了挑戰(zhàn)，要求辦公室建立公開的評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，根據(jù)各公司的職場(chǎng)實(shí)踐給它們打分。他希望華爾街獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)那些支持培訓(xùn)、多樣化、薪酬平等，反對(duì)裁員、外包和關(guān)閉工廠的公司。

我喜歡這個(gè)公開評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的想法（目前仍然如此），不過(guò)我們只是一家很小的機(jī)構(gòu)，而當(dāng)時(shí)美國(guó)有大約600萬(wàn)個(gè)辦公場(chǎng)所。此外，我也不確定職場(chǎng)實(shí)踐和公司業(yè)績(jī)之間的關(guān)聯(lián)是否足夠明顯到讓華爾街給予關(guān)注。

商業(yè)的成功無(wú)法用單一因素來(lái)解釋。產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)創(chuàng)新、成本競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力、明智的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)——以及時(shí)間和運(yùn)氣——都會(huì)影響公司業(yè)績(jī)。例如，直到20世紀(jì)90年代早期，IBM還在培訓(xùn)員工上大量投入，堅(jiān)持通過(guò)損耗而不是裁員來(lái)縮減員工規(guī)模。公司還把女性和少數(shù)族裔提拔至管理層。但是他們?cè)趥€(gè)人電腦的革新上出現(xiàn)了重大的管理失誤，遭遇了慘痛的虧損。相反，微軟（Microsoft）在1993年至1994年間增長(zhǎng)了約20%，但他們?cè)诟纳坡殘?chǎng)上沒有任何明顯的創(chuàng)舉。我擔(dān)心，這樣一份推薦IBM而不是微軟的職場(chǎng)質(zhì)量指標(biāo)在券商那里會(huì)顯得無(wú)足輕重。

然而，賴克沒有那么容易被勸阻。在向他推銷了有關(guān)工作場(chǎng)所非常重要的想法之后，我就沒有了推諉的立場(chǎng)。所以我建議找那些我們認(rèn)為可能會(huì)用到這種職場(chǎng)指數(shù)的首席執(zhí)行官和華爾街交易員測(cè)試一番。賴克推薦了貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）的首席執(zhí)行官艾倫·格林伯格和強(qiáng)生公司（Johnson & Johnson）的首席執(zhí)行官詹姆斯·伯克。我推薦了投資者沃倫·巴非特和黑石集團(tuán)（Blackstone Group）的董事長(zhǎng)彼得·彼得森。

最后，我們把上述這些和另外一些美國(guó)資本界的巨頭請(qǐng)到了一起，看看他們對(duì)這一職場(chǎng)質(zhì)量指數(shù)有何評(píng)價(jià)。賴克和我的腦海中滿是莫斯科維茨的想法，我們解釋了這個(gè)指數(shù)的機(jī)制、數(shù)據(jù)的來(lái)源，以及希望投資者如何利用這一信息。隨后，每位領(lǐng)袖都耐心地解釋我們的想法為什么不可行。理由之一是華爾街交易的是公司，而不是職場(chǎng)。強(qiáng)大而充滿信任的職場(chǎng)文化和公司業(yè)績(jī)之間存在一定聯(lián)系，但不能完全確保最終業(yè)績(jī)的強(qiáng)勢(shì)。畢竟，杰克·韋爾奇治下的通用電氣（General Electric）就是通過(guò)裁員和生產(chǎn)外包擴(kuò)大了利潤(rùn)。

即使華爾街對(duì)這一信息不買賬，但認(rèn)可那些美國(guó)最具創(chuàng)新力的職場(chǎng)仍然意義十足。我聯(lián)系了莫斯科維茨，得到了他的建議。勞工部能否設(shè)立一個(gè)類似于馬爾科姆·鮑德里奇國(guó)家質(zhì)量獎(jiǎng)（Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award）的獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)？他擔(dān)心政府的獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)太容易被政治化。那么，像《財(cái)富》雜志對(duì)美國(guó)的大公司那樣，頒布一份最佳職場(chǎng)的年度榜單呢？讓一家商業(yè)雜志公布他的榜單，相當(dāng)于結(jié)合了評(píng)分和頒獎(jiǎng)的意味。莫斯科維茨采納了這一想法。1998年，《財(cái)富》雜志開始根據(jù)他的調(diào)查與分析，發(fā)布一年一度的“最佳職場(chǎng)100強(qiáng)”榜單。

一些公司繼續(xù)質(zhì)疑登上這份“最佳職場(chǎng)”榜單的商業(yè)價(jià)值。然而，2010年《金融經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)刊》（Journal of Financial Economics）上的一份研究根據(jù)莫斯科維茨遴選的公司建立了一個(gè)投資組合，并針對(duì)公司特征、領(lǐng)域和離群值等因素進(jìn)行了統(tǒng)計(jì)控制。作者得出結(jié)論稱，“最佳職場(chǎng)”投資組合的表現(xiàn)顯著優(yōu)于行業(yè)基準(zhǔn)水平，因?yàn)楣墒袥]有充分評(píng)判盡職盡責(zé)的員工等無(wú)形資產(chǎn)。事實(shí)證明，莫斯科維茨一直是對(duì)的。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

作者馬丁·曼利曾經(jīng)擔(dān)任美國(guó)勞工部部長(zhǎng)助理，是兩家硅谷科技公司的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人和首席執(zhí)行官。他的新著《更好的交易：調(diào)動(dòng)雇主和員工來(lái)拯救美國(guó)中產(chǎn)階級(jí)》（A Better Bargain: Organizing Employers and Workers to Save America’s Middle Class）即將出版。

譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

Milton Moskowitz first published The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America with Robert Levering in 1984. Until his death on March 5, Moskowitz believed that better workplaces produce better companies. His genius was to transform data from surveys of millions of workers into stories about workplace innovation so compelling that managers began to take notice and compete for a place on his list.

Moskowitz was convinced that America’s best workplaces had important lessons to teach the rest. His conviction helped inspire the creation of a new federal agency. Promoting workplace best practices seemed like it could offer benefits to companies in the way agricultural extension services did for agriculture. Pioneered in Ireland in response to the potato famine, extension agents organized the exchange of information and skill between farmers to promote production. In the early days of the Clinton administration, I wondered whether the government could do something similar for U.S. workplaces?

Labor Secretary nominee Robert Reich believed we could. He thought that the Labor Department should not only collect critical economic data, enforce workplace standards, and fund training programs, but that it should also analyze and promote workplaces that trained and empowered hourly workers. From 1993 to 1996, the Labor Department operated the Office of the American Workplace which was, like Moskowitz, devoted to the notion that great companies are highly committed to their workers. I helped persuade Reich to create the agency and was appointed to lead it.

Reich challenged the agency to create a public scorecard that graded companies based on their workplace practices. He hoped that Wall Street might reward companies that embraced training, diversity, and pay equity and resisted layoffs, outsourcing, or plant closures.

I loved the idea of a public scorecard (and still do) but we were a small agency and, at the time, the U.S. had some 6 million workplaces. Moreover, I doubted that the connection between workplace practices and corporate performance was robust enough for Wall Street to care.

There are no single-factor explanations of business success. Product and service innovation, cost competitiveness, and smart leadership—as well as timing and luck—all affect business performance. Until the early 1990s, for instance, IBM invested heavily in training its employees and remained committed to shrinking its workforce through attrition, not layoffs. They promoted women and minorities into leadership. But the company had horribly mismanaged the PC revolution and was experiencing major losses. Microsoft, in contrast, had grown around 20% from 1993 to 1994 without any prominent workplace initiatives. I worried that a workplace quality index that promoted IBM but not Microsoft would carry little weight with securities traders.

Reich, however, was not easily dissuaded. And having sold him on the idea that workplaces mattered, I was in no position to equivocate. So I suggested that we test the workplace index with the CEOs and Wall Street traders we thought might use it. Reich proposed Alan Greenberg, CEO of Bear Stearns, and James Burke, the CEO of Johnson & Johnson. I suggested investor Warren Buffett and Peter Peterson, chairman of Blackstone Group.

Eventually, we brought together these and several other titans of American capitalism to tell us whether they would value an index of workplace quality. With Moskowitz very much on our minds, Reich and I described how it might work, where the data would come from, and how we hoped investors might use the information. Afterwards, each leader patiently explained why our idea wouldn’t work. One example offered was that Wall Street traded companies, not workplaces. The link between a strong, high-trust workplace culture and corporate performance was indicative—but not fully predictive—of strong business results. After all, companies like General Electric under Jack Welch had increased their profits by laying off staff and outsourcing manufacturing.

Even if Wall Street wouldn’t trade on the information, it still made sense to recognize America’s most innovative workplaces. I contacted Moskowitz to get his advice. Should the Labor Department create a prize like the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award? He worried that government prizes were too easily politicized. What about issuing an annual list of best workplaces like Fortune did for America’s largest companies? Having a business magazine publish his list would combine the best elements of a scorecard and a prize. Moskowitz pursued the idea and, in 1998, Fortune began publishing its annual “100 Best Places to Work” list based on his surveys and analysis.

Some companies continued to doubt that membership in the “Best Places to Work” list had business value. In 2010, however, a study in the Journal of Financial Economics created a portfolio of his companies and applied statistical controls for factors such as firm characteristics, sector, and outliers. They concluded that the “Best Places to Work” portfolio significantly outperformed industry benchmarks because the stock market does not fully value intangible assets like committed workers. Moskowitz, it turns out, had been right.

Martin Manley served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Labor and subsequently as the co-founder and CEO of two Silicon Valley technology companies. He is the author of the forthcoming book: A Better Bargain: Organizing Employers and Workers to Save America’s Middle Class.