Jeg har en tilståelse. Jeg er en business professor, hvis ambition altid har været, at hjælpe folk med at lede. Men for nylig opdagede jeg, at hvad mange af os opfatter som god ledelse ikke virker, når det kommer til at lede innovation
I have a confession to make. I'm a business professor whose ambition has been to help people learn to lead. But recently, I've discovered that what many of us think of as great leadership does not work when it comes to leading innovation.
Jeg er en etnograf. Jeg bruger antropologiens metode til at forstå de spørgsmål, som jeg er interesseret i. Så sammen med tre medsammensvorne, brugte jeg næsten et årti på at observere, på tæt hold og personligt, enestående ledere af innovation. Vi studerede 16 mænd og kvinder, placeret i syv lande fordelt over kloden, arbejdende i 12 forskellige industrier. I alt brugte vi hundredvis af timer på jorden, on-site, kiggende på disse ledere i aktion. Vi endte med sider og sider og sider af felt noter, som vi analyserede for mønstre i, hvad vores ledere gjorde. Slutresultatet? Hvis vi vil opbygge organisationer, som kan innovere igen og igen, så må vi glemme vores konventionelle opfattelser af ledelse.
I'm an ethnographer. I use the methods of anthropology to understand the questions in which I'm interested. So along with three co-conspirators, I spent nearly a decade observing up close and personal exceptional leaders of innovation. We studied 16 men and women, located in seven countries across the globe, working in 12 different industries. In total, we spent hundreds of hours on the ground, on-site, watching these leaders in action. We ended up with pages and pages and pages of field notes that we analyzed and looked for patterns in what our leaders did. The bottom line? If we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again, we must unlearn our conventional notions of leadership.
At lede innovation er ikke om at skabe en vision, og inspirere andre til at udføre den. Men hvad mener vi med innovation? En innovation er alt, som er både nyt og brugbart. Det kan være et produkt eller en service. Det kan være en process eller en måde at organisere. Det kan være gradvist, eller det kan være et gennembrud. Vi har en rimelig inklusiv definition.
Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. It can be a product or service. It can be a process or a way of organizing. It can be incremental, or it can be breakthrough. We have a pretty inclusive definition.
Hvor mange af jer genkender denne mand? Op med hænderne. Behold jeres hænder oppe hvis I ved, hvem det er. Hvad med disse bekendte ansigter? (Latter) Fra antallet af hænder ser det ud til, at mange af jer har set en Pixar film, men meget få af jer genkendte Ed Camull, skaberen og CEO af Pixar -- en af de virksomheder, som jeg havde privilegiet af at studere.
How many of you recognize this man? Put your hands up. Keep your hands up, if you know who this is. How about these familiar faces? (Laughter) From your show of hands, it looks like many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar -- one of the companies I had the privilege of studying.
Mit første besøg til Pixar var i 2005, da de arbejdede på "Ratatouille", den provokerende film om en rotte, som bliver en mester kok. Computer-genererede film er virkelig mainstream i dag, men det tog Ed og hans kolleger næsten 20 år at skabe den første fuld længde C.G. film. I de efterfølgende 20 år, har de produceret 14 film. Jeg var for nylig ved Pixar, og jeg er her for at fortælle jer, at nummer 15 er en sikker vinder.
My first visit to Pixar was in 2005, when they were working on "Ratatouille," that provocative movie about a rat becoming a master chef. Computer-generated movies are really mainstream today, but it took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies. I was recently at Pixar, and I'm here to tell you that number 15 is sure to be a winner.
Når mange af os tænker på innovation, tænker vi ofte på en Einstein, som har et "Aha!" øjeblik. Men vi ved alle, at det er en myte. Innovation er ikke om solo genialitet, det er om kollektivt genialitet. Lad os for et øjeblik overveje, hvad det tager at lave en Pixar film: Intet solo geni, intet glimt af inspiration producerer en af disse film. Tvært i mod. Det tager omkring 250 mennesker fire til fem år at lave en af disse film.
When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment. But we all know that's a myth. Innovation is not about solo genius, it's about collective genius. Let's think for a minute about what it takes to make a Pixar movie: No solo genius, no flash of inspiration produces one of those movies. On the contrary, it takes about 250 people four to five years, to make one of those movies.
For at hjælpe os med at forstå processen, tegnede et individ i studiet en version af dette billede. Han gjorde det modstræbende, fordi det antyder, at processen er en pæn serie af skridt taget af diskrete grupper. Selv med alle de pile, mente han, at det fejlede i at fortælle jer, hvor iterativt, nært forbundet, og rent ud sagt rodet deres process var.
To help us understand the process, an individual in the studio drew a version of this picture. He did so reluctantly, because it suggested that the process was a neat series of steps done by discrete groups. Even with all those arrows, he thought it failed to really tell you just how iterative, interrelated and, frankly, messy their process was.
Hele vejen igennem skabelsen af en film hos Pixar, udvikler historien sig. Så tænk over det. Nogle filmoptagelser er hurtigt overstået. De går ikke alle sammen i rækkefølge. Det afhænger af, hvor besværlige udfordringerne er, som de møder, når de arbejder på en specifik scene. Så hvis du tænker på den scene i "Op", hvor drengen giver chokoladestykket til fuglen, som varede 10 sekunder, tog en animator næsten 6 måneder at perfektionere.
Throughout the making of a movie at Pixar, the story evolves. So think about it. Some shots go through quickly. They don't all go through in order. It depends on how vexing the challenges are that they come up with when they are working on a particular scene. So if you think about that scene in "Up" where the boy hands the piece of chocolate to the bird, that 10 seconds took one animator almost six months to perfect.
Det andet om en Pixar film er, at ingen del af filmen er opfattet som færdig, før at hele filmen er færdig. Delvist igennem en produktion tegnede en animator en figur med et buet øjenbryn, som antydede en drilagtig side. Da instruktøren så den tegning, syntes han den var god. Den var smuk, men han sagde, "Du er nød til at droppe det; det passer ikke til figuren." To uger senere kom instruktøren tilbage og sagde, "Lad os putte de to sekunder i filmen." Fordi den animator havde lov til at dele, hvad vi henviste til som hans del af geni, var han i stand til at hjælpe instruktøren med at genfortolke figuren på en diskret men vigtig måde, som virkelig forbedrede historien.
The other thing about a Pixar movie is that no part of the movie is considered finished until the entire movie wraps. Partway through one production, an animator drew a character with an arched eyebrow that suggested a mischievous side. When the director saw that drawing, he thought it was great. It was beautiful, but he said, "You've got to lose it; it doesn't fit the character." Two weeks later, the director came back and said, "Let's put in those few seconds of film." Because that animator was allowed to share what we referred to as his slice of genius, he was able to help that director reconceive the character in a subtle but important way that really improved the story.
Hvad vi ved er, at i hjertet af innovation er et paradoks. Du er nød til at slippe talenterne og passioner af mange mennesker fri, og du er nød til at kontrollere dem ind i et værk, som faktisk er brugbart. Innovation er en rejse. Det er form for samarbejdende problemløsning, for det meste mellem folk, som har forskellige ekspertiser og forskellige synsvinkler.
What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovation is a journey. It's a type of collaborative problem solving, usually among people who have different expertise and different points of view.
Innovationer bliver sjældent skabt med det samme. Som mange af jer ved, er de ofte et resultat af at prøve sig frem. Mange mislykkede forsøg, fejlskridt og fejltagelser. Innovativt arbejde kan være meget oplivende, men det kan også være decideret skræmmende. Så når ser på, hvorfor det er, Pixar er i stand til at gøre, hvad de gør, er vi nød til at spørge os selv, hvad foregår der her?
Innovations rarely get created full-blown. As many of you know, they're the result, usually, of trial and error. Lots of false starts, missteps and mistakes. Innovative work can be very exhilarating, but it also can be really downright scary. So when we look at why it is that Pixar is able to do what it does, we have to ask ourselves, what's going on here?
Det er sikkert at historien, og helt sikkert Hollywood, er fuld af stjerne fyldte hold, som har fejlet. De fleste af de fejltagelser er tilskrevet for mange stjerne eller for mange kokke, om du vil, i køkkenet. Så hvorfor er det, at Pixar med alle deres kokke er i stand til at være så succesfulde igen og igen? Da vi studerede en Islamisk Bank i Dubai, eller et luksus brand i Korea, eller en social virksomhed i Afrika, fandt vi ud af, at innovative organisationer er samfund, som har tre kapaciteter: kreativt slid, kreativ adræthed og kreativ beslutsomhed. Kreativt slid er om at være i stand til at skabe en markedsplads af ideer igennem debat og samtaler. I innovative organisationer forstærker de forskelligheder, de minimerer dem ikke. Kreativt slid handler ikke om brainstorming, hvor folk holder deres meninger tilbage. Nej. De ved, hvordan man har ophedede, men konstruktive argumenter, for at skabe en portefølje af alternativer.
For sure, history and certainly Hollywood, is full of star-studded teams that have failed. Most of those failures are attributed to too many stars or too many cooks, if you will, in the kitchen. So why is it that Pixar, with all of its cooks, is able to be so successful time and time again? When we studied an Islamic Bank in Dubai, or a luxury brand in Korea, or a social enterprise in Africa, we found that innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution. Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. In innovative organizations, they amplify differences, they don't minimize them. Creative abrasion is not about brainstorming, where people suspend their judgment. No, they know how to have very heated but constructive arguments to create a portfolio of alternatives.
Individer i innovative organisationer lærer, hvordan man forespørger, de lærer, hvordan man aktivt lytter men gæt engang. De lærer også, hvordan man forsvarer sin egen holdning. De forstår, at innovation sjældent finder sted, medmindre du har både diversitet og konflikt. Kreativ adræthed er om at være i stand til at teste og danne porteføljen af ideer igennem hurtig udførelse, refleksion og tilpasning. Det er om opdagelsesbaseret læring, hvor du handler, i modsætning til planlægger, din vej ind i fremtiden. Det er om design tænkning, hvor du har en interessant kombination af den videnskabelig metode og kunstneriske proces. Det er om at køre rækker af eksperimenter og ikke en række af forsøgsprojekter.
Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, but guess what? They also learn how to advocate for their point of view. They understand that innovation rarely happens unless you have both diversity and conflict. Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. It's about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. It's about design thinking where you have that interesting combination of the scientific method and the artistic process. It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots.
Eksperimenter er som regel om læring. Når du får et negativt udfald, lærer du stadig noget, som du har brug for at vide. Forsøgsprojekter handler ofte om at have ret. Når de ikke fungerer, så er nogen eller noget at bebrejde. Den sidste kapacitet er kreativ beslutsomhed. Dette handler om træffe beslutninger på en måde, hvor du kan kombinere selv modstridende ideer, for at omdanne dem i nye kombinationer, for at producere en løsning, som er ny og brugbar. Når du ser på innovative organisationer, taler de aldrig hinanden efter munden. De går ikke på kompromis. De lader ikke en gruppe eller et individ dominere, ikke engang hvis det er chefen, ikke engang hvis det er eksperten. I stedet for har de udviklet en relativ tålmodig og mere inklusiv beslutningsproces, som tillader både/og løsninger at opstå, og ikke simple enten/eller løsninger. Disse tre kapaciteter er, hvorfor vi ser, at Pixar er i stand til at gøre, hvad de gør.
Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning something that you need to know. Pilots are often about being right. When they don't work, someone or something is to blame. The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They don't compromise. They don't let one group or one individual dominate, even if it's the boss, even if it's the expert. Instead, they have developed a rather patient and more inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions. These three capabilities are why we see that Pixar is able to do what it does.
Lad mig give jer et andet eksempel, og det eksempel er Google's infrastruktur gruppe. Google's infrastruktur gruppe er gruppen, som skal holde siden kørende 24/7. Så da Google var ved at introducere Gmail og YouTube, vidste de, at deres dataopbevarings system ikke var tilstrækkelig. Lederen af ingeniør gruppen og infrastruktur gruppen på det tidspunkt, var en man ved navn Bill Coughran. Bill og hans ledelseshold, som han refererede til som hans hjernetrust, var nød til at finde ud af, hvordan situationen skulle håndteres. De tænkte over det. I stedet for at skabe en gruppe til at takle denne opgave, besluttede de at lade grupper opstå spontant om forskellige alternativer.
Let me give you another example, and that example is the infrastructure group of Google. The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. So when Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate. The head of the engineering group and the infrastructure group at that time was a man named Bill Coughran. Bill and his leadership team, who he referred to as his brain trust, had to figure out what to do about this situation. They thought about it for a while. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives.
To grupper smeltede sammen. En blev kendt som "Big Table", den anden blev kendt som "Build it From Scratch". Big Table foreslog, at de byggede videre på det nuværende system. Build it From Scratch foreslog, at det var på tide med et helt nyt system. Separat var disse to hold tilladt at arbejde fuldtid på deres specifikke vinkel. I ingeniør tidsskrifter beskrev Bill sin rolle som "At indsprøjte ærlighed i processen ved at fremme debat."
Two groups coalesced. One became known as Big Table, the other became known as Build It From Scratch. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system. Separately, these two teams were allowed to work full-time on their particular approach. In engineering reviews, Bill described his role as, "Injecting honesty into the process by driving debate."
Tidligt i forløbet var holdene opfordret til at bygge prototyper, så de kunne, "holde dem op imod virkeligheden og selv opdage styrkerne og svaghederne i deres respektive vinkel." Da Build it From Scratch delte deres prototype med gruppen, hvis personsøger ville ringe i midten af natten, hvis noget gik galt med hjemmesiden, hørte de højt og klart om begrænsningerne af deres design. Som behovet for en løsning blev mere påtrængende, og som dataene, eller beviset begyndte at komme ind, blev det rimelig klart, at Big Table løsningen var den rette for øjeblikket. Så de valgte den.
Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." When Build It From Scratch shared their prototype with the group whose beepers would have to go off in the middle of the night if something went wrong with the website, they heard loud and clear about the limitations of their particular design. As the need for a solution became more urgent and as the data, or the evidence, began to come in, it became pretty clear that the Big Table solution was the right one for the moment. So they selected that one.
Men for at være sikker på, at de ikke mistede erfaringen fra Build it From Scratch holdet, bad Bill to medlemmer af det hold om at tilslutte sig et nyt hold, som opstod for at arbejde på det næste generations system. Hele denne proces tog næsten to år, men jeg blev fortalt, at de alle arbejde i halsbrækkende hastighed.
But to make sure that they did not lose the learning of the Build it From Scratch team, Bill asked two members of that team to join a new team that was emerging to work on the next-generation system. This whole process took nearly two years, but I was told that they were all working at breakneck speed.
Tidligt i processen, havde en af ingeniørerne henvendt sig til Bill og sagt, "Vi har alle for travlt til dette ineffektive system med at køre parallelle eksperimenter." Men som processen udfoldede sig, begyndte han at forstå klogskaben i at tillade talentfulde folk at udfolde deres passioner. Han indrømmede, "Hvis du havde tvunget os til alle at være på et hold, havde vi måske været nødsaget til at bevise hvem, som har ret og vinder, og ikke på at lære og opdage, hvad der var det bedste svar for Google."
Early in that process, one of the engineers had gone to Bill and said, "We're all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom of allowing talented people to play out their passions. He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."
Hvorfor er det at Pixar og Google er i stand til at innovere igen og igen? Det er fordi, at de har mestret kapaciteten, der er nødvendig for det. De ved, hvordan man laver kooperativ problemløsning, de ved, hvordan man laver opdagelse dreven læring, og de ved, hvordan man foretager en integreret beslutningsproces.
Why is it that Pixar and Google are able to innovate time and again? It's because they've mastered the capabilities required for that. They know how to do collaborative problem solving, they know how to do discovery-driven learning and they know how to do integrated decision making.
Nogle af jer sidder måske der og tænker for jer selv lige nu, "Vi ved ikke, hvordan man gør de ting i min organisation. Så hvorfor ved de, hvordan man gør de ting hos Pixar, og hvorfor ved de, hvordan man gør det hos Google?" Når mange af de folk, som arbejdede for Bill fortalte os, at i deres mening, var Bill en af de bedste ledere i Silicon Valley, var vi fuldstændig enige; manden er et geni.
Some of you may be sitting there and saying to yourselves right now, "We don't know how to do those things in my organization. So why do they know how to do those things at Pixar, and why do they know how to do those things at Google?" When many of the people that worked for Bill told us, in their opinion, that Bill was one of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley, we completely agreed; the man is a genius.
Ledelse er den hemmelige opskrift. Men det er en anderledes form for ledelse, ikke den form som mange af os tænker på, når vi tænker på god ledelse. En af de ledere jeg mødtes med i begyndelsen sagde til mig, "Linda, jeg læser ikke bøger om ledelse. Alt de formår, er at gøre mig deprimeret." (Latter) "I det første kapitel siger de, at jeg skal skabe en vision. Men hvis jeg prøver at gøre noget, som virkelig er nyt, har jeg ingen svar. Jeg ved ikke, hvilken retning vi går i mod, og jeg ikke engang sikker på, at jeg ved, hvordan vi kommer derhen." Der er helt sikkert tider, hvor visionær ledelse er præcist, hvad som er nødvendigt.
Leadership is the secret sauce. But it's a different kind of leadership, not the kind many of us think about when we think about great leadership. One of the leaders I met with early on said to me, "Linda, I don't read books on leadership. All they do is make me feel bad." (Laughter) "In the first chapter they say I'm supposed to create a vision. But if I'm trying to do something that's truly new, I have no answers. I don't know what direction we're going in and I'm not even sure I know how to figure out how to get there." For sure, there are times when visionary leadership is exactly what is needed.
Men hvis vi vil bygge organisationer, som kan innovere igen og igen, må vi omstøbe vores forståelse af hvad ledelse handler om. At lede innovation handler om at skabe rummet, hvor folk er villige og i stand til at tage det hårde arbejde med innovativ problemløsning.
But if we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again, we must recast our understanding of what leadership is about. Leading innovation is about creating the space where people are willing and able to do the hard work of innovative problem solving.
På dette tidspunkt er der sikkert nogle af jer, som undrer jer over, "Hvordan ser ledelse virkelig ud?" Hos Pixar forstår de, at innovation tager en landsby. Lederne fokuserer på at bygge en form for fællesskab og at bygge de tre kapaciteter. Hvordan definerer de ledelse? De siger, at ledelse er om at skabe en verden, som folk vil være en del af. Hvilken form for verden vil folk tilhøre hos Pixar? En verden hvor du lever på grænsen. Hvad fokuserer de deres tid på? Ikke at skabe en vision. I stedet bruger de deres tid på at tænke på, "Hvordan skaber vi et studie, som har følsomheden af et offentlig torv, så folk vil interagere. Lad os implementere en politik, hvor alle uanset deres niveau eller rolle er tilladt at give noter til instruktøren, om hvordan de føler om en bestemt film. Hvad kan vi gøre for at være sikker på, at alle de forstyrrende folk, alle stemmerne af minoriteten i organisationen, taler op og er hørt. Og til slut, lad os uddele anerkendelse på en meget generøs måde." Jeg ved ikke, om I nogensinde har set rulletekster på en Pixar film, men babyer, som er født under en produktion er listet der. (Latter)
At this point, some of you may be wondering, "What does that leadership really look like?" At Pixar, they understand that innovation takes a village. The leaders focus on building a sense of community and building those three capabilities. How do they define leadership? They say leadership is about creating a world to which people want to belong. What kind of world do people want to belong in at Pixar? A world where you're living at the frontier. What do they focus their time on? Not on creating a vision. Instead they spend their time thinking about, "How do we design a studio that has the sensibility of a public square so that people will interact? Let's put in a policy that anyone, no matter what their level or role, is allowed to give notes to the director about how they feel about a particular film. What can we do to make sure that all the disruptors, all the minority voices in this organization, speak up and are heard? And, finally, let's bestow credit in a very generous way." I don't know if you've ever looked at the credits of a Pixar movie, but the babies born during a production are listed there. (Laughter)
Hvordan tænkte Bill over, hvad hans rolle var? Bill sagde, "Jeg leder en frivillig organisation.. Talentfulde folk vil ikke følge mig hvor som helst hen. De vil sammen med mig skabe fremtiden. Mit job er at opfostre fra bunden op og ikke lade det degenerere til kaos." Hvordan så han sin rolle? "Jeg er en rollemodel, jeg er menneskelig lim, Jeg er en forbinder, jeg er en samler af synspunkter. Jeg er aldrig en diktator af synspunkter." Råd om hvordan du udfører rollen? Hyr folk som diskuterer med dig. Og gæt engang? Nogle gange er det bedst at være bevidst uklar og vag.
How did Bill think about what his role was? Bill said, "I lead a volunteer organization. Talented people don't want to follow me anywhere. They want to cocreate with me the future. My job is to nurture the bottom-up and not let it degenerate into chaos." How did he see his role? "I'm a role model, I'm a human glue, I'm a connector, I'm an aggregator of viewpoints. I'm never a dictator of viewpoints." Advice about how you exercise the role? Hire people who argue with you. And, guess what? Sometimes it's best to be deliberately fuzzy and vague.
Nogle af jer undrer jer måske nu om, hvad tænker disse folk på? De tænker, "Jeg er ikke en visionær, jeg er den sociale arkitekt. Jeg skaber rummet, hvor folk er i stand og villige til, at dele og kombinere deres talenter og passioner." Hvis nogle af jer nu er bekymrede over, at I ikke arbejder hos Pixar, eller I ikke arbejder hos Google, vil jeg sige til jer, at der er stadig håb. Vi har studeret mange organisationer, som ikke rigtig er organisationer man tænker på, som nogle hvor der er meget innovation.
Some of you may be wondering now, what are these people thinking? They're thinking, "I'm not the visionary, I'm the social architect. I'm creating the space where people are willing and able to share and combine their talents and passions." If some of you are worrying now that you don't work at a Pixar, or you don't work at a Google, I want to tell you there's still hope. We've studied many organizations that were really not organizations you'd think of as ones where a lot of innovation happens.
Vi studerede en juridisk afdeling i en farmaceutisk virksomhed, som var nød til at finde ud af, hvordan de fik advokater fra 19 konkurrenter til at samarbejde og innovere. Vi studerede lederen af marketing hos en tysk bilproducent, hvor de fundamentalt troede, at det var designingeniørerne, ikke markedsførerne, som var tilladt at være innovative. Vi studerede Vineet Nayar hos HCL Technologies, en indisk outsourcing virksomhed. Da vi mødte Vineet, var hans virksomhed, i hans ord, ved at blive irrelevant. Vi så ham forvandle den virksomhed til en global dynamo af IT innovation. Hos HCL technologies, ligesom hos mange virksomheder, havde lederne lært at se deres rolle som at sætte en retning og være sikker på, at ingen afveg fra den. Hvad han gjorde var at fortælle dem, at det var tid for dem til at genoverveje, hvad de egentlig burde gøre. For hvad der skete var, at alle så opad, og man så ikke den form for innovation nedefra, som vi så hos Pixar eller Google. Så de begyndte at arbejde på det.
We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We studied the head of marketing at a German automaker where, fundamentally, they believed that it was the design engineers, not the marketeers, who were allowed to be innovative. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies, an Indian outsourcing company. When we met Vineet, his company was about, in his words, to become irrelevant. We watched as he turned that company into a global dynamo of I.T. innovation. At HCL technologies, like at many companies, the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. What he did is tell them it was time for them to think about rethinking what they were supposed to do. Because what was happening is that everybody was looking up and you weren't seeing the kind of bottom-up innovation we saw at Pixar or Google. So they began to work on that.
De stoppede med at give svar, de stoppede med at prøve at give løsninger. Hvad de gjorde i stedet for var, at de begyndte at se på folkene i bunden af pyramiden, de unge, folkene som var tættest på kunderne, som kilden til innovation. De begyndte at overføre organisationens vækst til det niveau. I Vineets sprog, var dette om at vende pyramiden på hovedet, så du kunne slippe kræften af de mange fri ved at løsne kvælertaget på de få, og øge kvaliteten og hastigheden på innovation som fandt sted hver dag.
They stopped giving answers, they stopped trying to provide solutions. Instead, what they did is they began to see the people at the bottom of the pyramid, the young sparks, the people who were closest to the customers, as the source of innovation. They began to transfer the organization's growth to that level. In Vineet's language, this was about inverting the pyramid so that you could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few, and increase the quality and the speed of innovation that was happening every day.
Vineet og alle de andre ledere vi studerede var faktisk visionære. De forstod, at dette ikke var deres rolle. Så jeg tror ikke, at det er tilfældigt, at mange af jer ikke genkendte Ed. Fordi Ed, ligesom Vineet, forstår at vores rolle som ledere er at sætte scenen, ikke at optræde på den. Hvis vi vil opfinde en bedre fremtid, og jeg formoder, at det er derfor, at mange af os er her, så er vi nød til at nyfortolke vores opgave. Vores opgave er at skabe det rum, hvor alles genistreger kan blive sluppet fri og udnyttet og blive formet til værker af kollektiv genialitet.
For sure, Vineet and all the other leaders that we studied were in fact visionaries. For sure, they understood that that was not their role. So I don't think it is accidental that many of you did not recognize Ed. Because Ed, like Vineet, understands that our role as leaders is to set the stage, not perform on it. If we want to invent a better future, and I suspect that's why many of us are here, then we need to reimagine our task. Our task is to create the space where everybody's slices of genius can be unleashed and harnessed, and turned into works of collective genius.
Tak.
Thank you.
(Bifald)
(Applause)