Jim Collins: Right. But, it's sort of starts there. And I think this is the real critical thing is key seats, what do you see as your most important seats?
I don't think you can compromise and have people who aren't passionate about what you folks are trying to do. Because then, first of all, they're not going, they can't do anything great if they're not particularly passionate about it. Now, where does it come from? I think you find people that are passionate; I don't think you can necessarily make people passionate.
We learned a very interesting thing about motivation. And in the "Good to Great" study, we're wrestling with the question of, how did these executives, particularly since they were not charismatic, in many cases, get people motivated and excited for the changes they needed to undergo?
And we kept asking them this question and we kept getting a blank response. They didn't understand the question.
Ok, you had these things you were tying to do, you had these people, and nobody's really excited and you went and did them. How did you do that? What do you mean, how did we do that? And we realized they didn't spend time motivating people. They thought the idea of motivating people was a waste of time.
What they spent time on was finding self motivated people. And then putting the things in place, and managing in such a way that you don't demotivate people who are already motivated.
I've done this thing a number of times, where I've been in a large room and I'll just simply ask, how many people in here today woke up this morning and said to yourself, I'd go do something interesting today only if somebody would come in and motivate me? No hands go up. If you really think about it, it kind of an insulting idea. The idea that somehow I am the motivator and you are this lump of flesh. And I as the motivator, I'm going to come in and infuse you with motivation. Well, if I'm the lump of flesh I don't feel very good about that, right?
So, what they really did is they said, we find people who have that kind of motivation when they come in the door and what we try to do is not destroy it. And that is a very different way of thinking about it.
Now, that said. I think that there are a lot of things companies can do about right seats that companies can teach.
One of the real critical dimensions of right people, may be we should just mention on some of those.
Uh-huh So, we stood back and said, ok, if we look across our researches, are there any kind of generic attributes of right people for key seats?
And we found a number, obviously there is always going to be specific things to that seat, or specific things to that company. If you're in bioengineering, if you are a biotechnology company and you're in the science area, you better know something about biochemistry or how to sequence DNA. Obviously that's important for the seat, but, in terms of generically...
And one, the right people in the key seat really don't think of it that they have a job. They have responsibilities and that's a huge distinction the idea that, no I'm responsible for bringing airplanes down safe, or I am responsible for the safety of the patient, or I am responsible for quality here, or I'm responsible, it's a set, I'm responsible for how the customer feels.
I'm responsible, I don't have a job, I don't have a list, I have a responsibility.
The second is that the right people in the key seats do what they say they're going to do, period.
Accountability.
Yeah, self-accountability. And so which means, they're very careful what they say they will do.
Number three. The right people have this very interesting, we call it, the 'window and mirror maturity'. What this means is, when some thing goes badly, they don't blame others. Even if it wasn't their fault, but if it's their responsibility, they'll stand in front of a mirror and say, I'm responsible. Here's what I learned, here's what I'll put in place for the future. Tremendous sense of learning.
And the flipside is, when things go really well, they don't take a lot of the credit. They readily point to the other people or the forces and factors that may have helped them be successful.
That's a very healthy response and you'll find that some people are always, if something goes wrong, they're blaming someone or something else rather than saying: I'm ultimately responsible and here's what I learned from it, here's how I grow.
Then we talked about that they have a passion for the company and they fit with the company's core values. Kind of walking in the door. So, these are really critical aspects of right people in key seats.
Now, you'll notice on there, that these are more character traits. Then there are skills and what we've learned about those that built a great company with a great culture is they focused on character, not on skills. What they would do is hire people who didn't necessarily know the business. So, we can teach them the business, we can't teach the work ethic. We can't teach them a sense of responsibility, we can't teach them a set of values. Because they bring those things with them, we can teach skills.
And so, we'll probably come back a little bit later when we talk about reduction into values. But, it's very interesting in Nucor's case how they opened up their steel mills in farming towns. And they opened their steel mills in farming towns because they said that farmers, there's a certain work ethic, rural, agrarian work ethic that will be very helpful in making steel. We can't teach that work ethic, but we can find it in these towns. And we can teach them how to make steel. So, instead of hiring folks who don't have a work ethic and try to give it to them. They said, we'll hire farmers that have a work ethic and we'll teach them how to make steel.
And you were mentioning a little while ago about the number of people coming out of universities is tripling in China. And you were talking about how companies have a great need for people; but young people don't yet have the skills that are needed.
What that means is, kind of a feeder program, you're trying to get those people who have the character you're looking for, they may be young, they may be untested and you bring them in and you train them in your business and you hire them based on the kinds of character you see in them and then you teach them the skills of the business, and that opens your playing field, much wider than saying we have to have someone coming out at age 22 that already knows our business. It's going to be a much smaller set of people to search through. |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：是的。但是，這基本上只是個(gè)起點(diǎn)。我認(rèn)為最重要的是關(guān)鍵性的崗位。你眼中的關(guān)鍵崗位有哪些？
我認(rèn)為對(duì)于公司業(yè)務(wù)沒有熱情的人，你不能接收他們，絕不能妥協(xié)。因?yàn)椋紫?，如果他們沒有熱情，就做不出好的業(yè)績。我認(rèn)為應(yīng)該尋找本身就富有熱情的員工；我認(rèn)為你未必可以讓人們變得充滿熱情。
關(guān)于激勵(lì)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了一些有趣的現(xiàn)象?！稄膬?yōu)秀到卓越》（Good to Great）一書中，我們?cè)谒急嬉粋€(gè)問題，這些高管們，尤其是那些不具備個(gè)人魅力的高管們，是怎樣激勵(lì)員工的，是如何使他們對(duì)即將經(jīng)歷的變革感到興奮的？
我們一直在問受訪對(duì)象這個(gè)問題，卻總是得不到答案。他們無法理解這個(gè)問題。
我們會(huì)問，假設(shè)你打算做一些事情，手下有一些員工，他們都不對(duì)此感到興奮，而你一往直前完成了工作。你是如何做到的？他們會(huì)反問，你們是什么意思，是要了解我們的做法嗎？最后我們意識(shí)到，他們并沒有花時(shí)間去激勵(lì)員工。他們認(rèn)為那是浪費(fèi)時(shí)間。
他們真正費(fèi)力去做的是尋找具有主動(dòng)性的員工。這樣一來，你只需做好部署，同時(shí)在管理中確保不讓員工喪失斗志就可以了。
有幾次，我在一個(gè)大屋子里，直接問在場的人，有多少人早上醒來對(duì)自己說，我今天只有在他人的激勵(lì)之下才會(huì)去做些有意思的事？沒有人舉手。認(rèn)真想想，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這個(gè)想法有點(diǎn)侮辱人。也就是說，我是激勵(lì)者，而你們只是行尸走肉。作為激勵(lì)者，我走進(jìn)房間，將激情注入你們的體內(nèi)。如果我是那具行尸走肉的話，我也不會(huì)高興的，對(duì)嗎？
所以，他們的做法是，尋找具有主動(dòng)性的員工，而且當(dāng)他們?nèi)肼氈?，我們要做的就是不要去打擊他們、破壞他們的主?dòng)性。這就是一種非常特別的思考角度。
說過這個(gè)問題之后，關(guān)于合適崗位的問題，公司有很多可以做的事。關(guān)于合適員工的關(guān)鍵素質(zhì)，我們也許應(yīng)該略提一二。
回顧過去的研究，我們是否發(fā)現(xiàn)了關(guān)鍵崗位上合適人選的一些共同的素質(zhì)呢？的確有一些。當(dāng)然，不同的崗位或者公司會(huì)有不同的情況。比如你在生物工程或者生物技術(shù)公司，你是科研領(lǐng)域的員工，那么你應(yīng)該懂得生化或者DNA排序。很顯然對(duì)于特定崗位，這是很關(guān)鍵的。
但是通常說來，合適人選不會(huì)把自己的職責(zé)僅僅看成是一份工作，而是看成一種責(zé)任。這之間有非常巨大的區(qū)別。他們會(huì)說，我負(fù)責(zé)讓飛機(jī)安全降落，我負(fù)責(zé)讓患者安康，我有責(zé)任保證產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量合格，或者我要保證客戶滿意。我不是僅僅有一份工作、一份任務(wù)清單，而是有一份責(zé)任。
第二點(diǎn)是，關(guān)鍵崗位的合適人選會(huì)落實(shí)他們說過要做的事情。
責(zé)任感。
是的，自我問責(zé)。他們?cè)诒硎緦⒁鍪裁词虑闀r(shí)，是很謹(jǐn)慎的。
第三點(diǎn)，合適人選有著“窗戶和鏡子的成熟心態(tài)”，這非常有意思。就是說，失敗時(shí)他們不會(huì)推卸給他人，即使并非他們自己的錯(cuò)。但是如果是他們的責(zé)任的話，他們就會(huì)站在鏡子前面說，我有責(zé)任，我學(xué)到了這些，我今后會(huì)改正這些。很有學(xué)習(xí)意識(shí)。
而且，當(dāng)事情很成功時(shí)，他們不會(huì)邀功，而是指出有其他人或者其他因素幫助了他們獲得成功。
這是非常健康的反應(yīng)。你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)有些人在失敗時(shí)總是怨天尤人，而不是說：失敗最終應(yīng)由我負(fù)責(zé)，通過失敗我成長了。
合適員工對(duì)公司還懷有深厚感情，融合了公司核心價(jià)值觀，有如一家人。這些就是關(guān)鍵崗位合適員工的幾個(gè)很關(guān)鍵的素質(zhì)。
你會(huì)注意到，這里更多的是性格特點(diǎn)。至于技能問題，我們了解到，建立起一家卓越公司以及良好文化的人更多注重性格而不是技能。他們所雇用的人不一定是很懂行的。我們可以向他們教授行業(yè)知識(shí)，但是我們無法教授職業(yè)道德。我們無法教授責(zé)任感以及一系列價(jià)值觀。當(dāng)他們自身具備這些素質(zhì)時(shí)，我們則可以教授給他們技能。
我們之后談到價(jià)值觀削弱的問題時(shí)，可能會(huì)回顧這個(gè)話題。紐克公司（Nucor）的案例就很有意思。他們?cè)谵r(nóng)業(yè)城鎮(zhèn)開辦煉鋼廠，因?yàn)樗麄冋J(rèn)為農(nóng)民具備一定的職業(yè)道德，而這種源于農(nóng)業(yè)的職業(yè)道德對(duì)于煉鋼會(huì)很有幫助。我們不能教授這種職業(yè)道德，但是我們可以在這些城鎮(zhèn)找到具備此類道德的人，然后教他們煉鋼。因此，該公司并沒有去雇傭無職業(yè)道德的人然后試圖向他們傳授職業(yè)道德。他們說，我們要雇傭具備職業(yè)道德的農(nóng)民，然后教他們?cè)趺礋掍摗?br/>
你剛才提到中國大學(xué)畢業(yè)生的人數(shù)增加了兩倍。你剛才也提到很多公司目前很需要人手，但是年輕人還不具備他們要求的技能。
這就意味著一個(gè)培養(yǎng)計(jì)劃。你試圖招募這些具備了你所要求品質(zhì)的人，他們可能很年輕，尚未經(jīng)歷考驗(yàn)，你可能會(huì)將他們招進(jìn)來并加以行業(yè)訓(xùn)練。因此你雇傭他們是基于你在他們身上發(fā)掘的品質(zhì)，之后才教授行業(yè)技能。這就很大地拓寬了你的選擇空間，這比你去尋找一群22歲的行家里手更有可能獲得成功。那就只會(huì)是很小的一群人供你選擇。 |
