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.
Imam priznanje za izreći. Profesor sam poslovanja čija je ambicija pomoći ljudima da nauče voditi. No, nedavno sam otkrila da mnogi od nas misle da sjajno rukovodstvo ne funkcionira kada je riječ o vođenju inovativnosti.
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.
Ja sam etnografkinja. Koristim metode antropologije kako bih razumjela pitanja koja me zanimaju. Zajedno s tri suučesnika provela sam gotovo desetljeće promatrajući izbliza i osobno izvanredne voditelje inovativnosti. Proučavali smo 16 muškaraca i žena, u sedam zemalja diljem planeta, koji su radili u 12 različitih industrija. Sveukupno, potrošili smo stotine sati na terenu, gledajući vođe na djelu. Imali smo stranice i stranice zapisa s terena koje smo analizirali i tražili uzorke u onome što su naši vođe radili. Rezultat toga? Ako želimo izgraditi organizacije koje mogu inovirati iznova i iznova, moramo zaboraviti konvencionalne strukture rukovodstva.
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.
Voditi inovacije ne znači stvarati viziju, i inspirirati druge da ju izvrše. No, što ustvari smatramo inovacijom? Inovacija je bilo što i novo i korisno. Može biti proizvod ili usluga. Može biti proces ili način organizacije. Može biti postupna ili probitačna. Imamo poprilično uključivu definiciju.
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.
Koliko vas prepoznaje ovog čovjeka? Dignite ruke. Ostavite ruke u zraku ako znate tko je ovo. A ova poznata lica? (Smijeh) Prema vašim rukama se čini kako vas je mnogo gledalo Pixarov film, no malo vas prepoznaje Eda Catmulla, osnivača i CEO Pixara -- jednog od poduzeća koje sam imala privilegiju proučavati.
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.
Moj prvi posjet Pixaru je bio 2005. kada su radili na "Ratatouille", provokativnom filmu o štakoru koju postaje vrhunski kuhar. Računalno generirani filmovi su stvarno popularni danas, no Edu i njegovim kolegama je trebalo gotovo 20 godina da stvore prvi dugometražni računalno animirani film. U 20 godina otada, producirali su 14 filmova. Nedavno sam bila u Pixaru i moram vam reći da će broj 15 biti sigurni pobjednik.
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.
Kada mnogi od nas razmišljaju o inovaciji, mislimo o Einsteinu kako ima "Aha!" trenutak. No svi znamo da je to mit. Inovacija se ne vrti oko solo genijalca, radi se o kolektivnom geniju. Razmislimo na trenutak što znači raditi Pixarov film: Niti pojedinačni genij, niti bljesak inspiracije ne produciraju filmove. Naprotiv, 250 ljudi treba 4-5 godina da završe jedan film.
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.
Da bismo bolje razumjeli proces, pojedinac je u studiju nacrtao verziju ove slike. Napravio je to nevoljko, jer je pokazivalo da je taj proces uredan slijed koraka napravljen od zasebnih grupa. Čak i sa svim strelicama, mislio je da ne pokazuje dosljedno koliko je zapravo učestao, međusobno povezan, i iskreno, neuredan taj proces.
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.
Tijekom stvaranja filma u Pixaru, priča se razvija. Razmislite o tome. Neke se stvari rješavaju brzo. No, ne idu sve baš po redu. Ovisi koliko je zbunjujuć izazov s kojim se susreću dok rade na jednoj sceni. Ako razmislite o toj sceni u "Nebesima" gdje dječak daje dio čokolade ptici, trebalo je jednom animatoru 6 mjeseci da usavrši tih 10 sekundi.
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.
Druga stvar kod Pixarovih filmova je da se nijedan dio filma ne smatra gotovim dok nije gotov cijeli film. Usred jedne produkcije, animator je nacrtao lik s uzdignutom obrvom koja implicira nestašnu stranu. Kada je redatelj vidio crtež, mislio je da je odličan. Bio je divan, no rekao je: "Moraš se toga riješiti, ne pristaje osobnosti lika." Dva tjedna kasnije, redatelj se vratio i rekao: "Stavimo ipak tih par sekundi filma." Iz razloga što je animator smio podijeliti ono o čemu pričamo kao osobnom dijelu genija, bio je u mogućnosti pomoći redatelju da iznova smisli taj lik na suptilan, no važan način koji je stvarno poboljšao priču.
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.
Ono što znamo, je da je u srcu inovacije zapravo paradoks. Morate osloboditi talente i strasti mnogo ljudi i morate ih upregnuti u rad koji im je zapravo koristan. Inovacija je pustolovina. Ona je vrsta suradničkog rješavanja problema, obično među ljudima koji imaju drugačiju ekspertizu i drugačija stajališta.
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?
Inovacije su rijetko stvorene odjednom. Kao što mnogi znaju, one su obično rezultat pokušaja i pogreške. Mnogo pogrešnih početaka, pogrešnih koraka i samih pogrešaka. Inovativan posao može biti vrlo stimulirajuć no može isto tako biti i zastrašujuć. Kada pogledamo zašto Pixar može napraviti to što i radi, moramo se zapitati što se tamo događa.
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.
Povijest i sam Hollywood su puni zvjezdanih timova koji nisu uspjeli. Većina tih neuspjeha su izazvani prevelikim brojem zvijezda ili, ako želite, previše babica - kilavo dijete. Zašto onda Pixar, sa svojih previše babica može uvijek iznova biti toliko uspješan? Kada smo proučavali Islamsku banku u Dubaiju, ili luksuzni brend u Koreji, ili društveno poduzeće u Africi, uvidjeli smo da su inovativne organizacije zajednice koje imaju tri sposobnosti: kreativnu abraziju, kreativnu agilnost i kreativno odlučivanje. Kreativna abrazija je mogućnost stvaranja tržišta ideja kroz debate i diskurse. U inovativnim organizacijama naglašavaju različitosti, ne umanjuju ih. Kreativna abrazija nije struja misli, gdje ljudi odbacuju svoj sud. Ne, znaju kako imati užarene, no vrlo konstruktivne argumentacije da stvore portfelj alternativa.
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.
Pojednici u inovativnim organizacijama uče kako se raspitati, uče kako aktivno slušati, no znate što? Također uče kako stati iza svog stajališta. Razumiju da se inovacija rijetko događa ako nemate i različitosti i sukob. Kreativna agilnost je o sposobnosti da se testira i pročisti portfelj ideja kroz brzu potragu, reflekciju i prilagodbu. Radi se o učenju kroz otkrivanje gdje djelujete, umjesto da planirate, na svojem putu prema budućnosti. Radi se o načinu razmišljanja u kojemu imate zanimljivu kombinaciju znanstvenih metoda i umjetničkog procesa. Radi se o provođenju niza eksperimenata, a ne nizu provođenja.
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.
Eksperimenti su obično vezani za učenje. Kada dobijete negativan rezultat, još uvijek učite nešto što biste trebali znati. Kod provođenja je obično važno biti u pravu. Kada ne funkcionira, nešto ili netko je kriv. Zadnja sposobnost je kreativna odlučnost. Radi se o donošenju odluka na način na koji možete spojiti čak i suprotne ideje da ih presložite u nove kombinacije da stvorite rješenje koje je i novo i korisno. Kada gledate inovativne organizacije, nikad se ne slažu samo da bi se slagali. Ne rade kompromise. Ne dopuštaju jednoj grupi ili jednom pojedincu da dominira, čak i ako je šef, čak i ako je ekspert. Umjesto toga su razvili strpljiv i uključiv proces donošenja odluka koji dopušta stvaranje "oboje - i" rješenja, a ne samo "ili - ili" rješenja. Ove tri sposobnosti nam omogućuju vidjeti kako Pixar može to što radi.
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.
Dat ću vam još jedan primjer, a taj primjer je infrastrukturna grupa Google-a. Infrastrukturna grupa Google-a je grupa koja mora održavati stranicu dostupnom 24/7. Kada je Google predstavljao Gmail i YouTube, znali su da njihov sustav za spremanje podataka nije odgovarajuć. Glava inžinjerske grupe i infrastrukturne grupe u to vrijeme je bio čovjek imenom Bill Coughran. Bill i njegov tim rukovoditelja, koje je zvao njegovom grupom mozgova, su morali zaključiti što će u ovakvoj situaciji. Razmišljali su o tome neko vrijeme. Umjesto da stvore grupu koja će se uhvatiti u koštac s ovim zadatkom, odlučili su dopustiti grupama da se razviju spontano oko različitih alternativa.
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."
Pojavile su se dvije grupe. Jedna je postala poznata kao Veliki stol, a druga kao Izgradi od nule. Veliki stol je dao ideju da grade na trenutnom sustavu. Izgradi od nule je dao ideju da je vrijeme za potpuno novi sustav. Odvojeno, ova su dva tima radili puno radno vrijeme na svom specifičnom pristupu. U inžinjerskim izvještajima, Bill je opisao svoju ulogu kao "Uključivanje iskrenosti u proces predvodeći raspravu."
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.
U početku, timovi su bili ohrabreni da grade prototipove kako bi ih mogli "sudariti s realnošću da sami saznaju vrline i mane svog pristupa." Kada je Izgradi od nule podijelio svoj prototip s grupom čiji bi se pejdžeri aktivirali usred noći ako bi nešto pošlo po krivu sa stranicom, čuli su jasno i glasno ograničenja svog dizajna. Kako je potreba za rješenjem postala sve hitnija i kako su podaci, odnosno dokazi, počeli dolaziti, postalo je očito da je rješenje Velikog stola zasad ono pravo. Stoga su odabrali to rješenje.
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.
No kako bi bili sigurni da nisu izgubili učenje od tima Izgradi od nule, Bill je tražio dva člana tog tima da se priključe novom timu koji je radio na sustavu nove generacije. Ovaj cijeli proces je trajao gotovo dvije godine, no rekli su mi kako su svi radili vrtoglavom brzinom.
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."
Rano u procesu, jedan od inžinjera je došao Billu i rekao: "Ovdje smo svi previše zauzeti za ovaj neučinkovit sustav vođenja paralelnih eksperimenata." No kako se proces odvijao, počeo je shvaćati mudrost u dopuštanju talentiranim ljudima da se vode svojim strastima. Priznao je: "Da ste nas prisilili da budemo svi u jednom timu, možda bismo se fokusirali na dokazivanje tko je u pravu i na pobjeđivanje a ne na učenje i otkrivanje što je najbolje rješenje za Google."
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.
Zašto su Pixar i Google u mogućnosti inovirati opet i opet? Jer su usavršili sposobnosti potrebne za to. Znaju kako zajedno riješiti problem, znaju kako učiti putem otkrivanja i znaju kako integrirano donositi odluke.
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.
Neki od vas možda sjede ovdje i govore si: "U mojoj organizaciji ne znamo kako to učiniti. Zašto onda u Pixaru znaju, i zašto onda u Googleu znaju?" Kada nam je mnogo ljudi koji su radili za Billa reklo da je po njihovom mišljenju Bill jedan od najboljih vođa u Silicon Valley-u, mi smo se potpuno složili; čovjek je genije.
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.
Rukovodstvo je tajni sastojak. No drugačija vrta rukovodstva, ne ona na koju mnogi pomisle kada razmišljaju o sjajnom rukovodstvu. Jedan od vođa koje sam prije srela mi je rekao: "Linda, ne čitam knjige o rukovodstvu. Sve što učine je to da se loše osjećam." (Smijeh) "U prvom poglavlju kažu da trebam imati viziju. No, ako pokušavam napraviti nešto uistinu novo, nemam odgovore. Ne znam u kojem smjeru idemo i nisam ni siguran da znam smisliti kako doći do tamo." Naravno, postoje vremena kada su vizionarski vođe upravo ono što je potrebno.
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.
No, ako želimo izgraditi organizacije koje mogu iznova i iznova inovirati, moramo ponovno shvatiti o čemu se u rukovodstvu zapravo radi. Voditi inovaciju znači stvarati prostor gdje su ljudi spremni i voljni obavljati težak posao rješavanja problema inovacije.
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)
U ovom trenutku se neki od vas možda pitaju: "Kako to rukovodstvo izgleda?" U Pixaru shvaćaju da je za inovaciju potrebno selo. Voditelji su usmjereni na gradnju osjećaja zajednice i izgradnju te tri sposobnosti. Kako definiraju rukovodstvo? Kažu da je u rukovodstvu riječ o stvaranju svijeta kojemu ljudi žele pripadati. Kakvom svijetu ljudi u Pixaru žele pripadati? Svijetu gdje živite na granici. Na što fokusiraju vrijeme? Ne na stvaranje vizije. Umjesto toga provode vrijeme razmišljajući: "Kako da stvorimo studio u kojem postoji osjećaj javnog trga tako da ljudi međusobno komuniciraju? Stavit ćemo politiku da bilo tko, nevažno na kojoj razini ili u kojoj ulozi ima pravo dati naputke redatelju o tome kako se osjeća u vezi određenog filma. Što možemo učiniti da osiguramo da se svi glasovi manjina u ovoj orgnizaciji oglase i čuju? I zadnje, darujmo im priznanje na vrlo velikodušan način." Ne znam jeste li ikada gledali odjavnu špicu na Pixarovom filmu, no bebe rođene tijekom produkcije su navedene tamo. (Smijeh)
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.
Kako je Bill razmišljao o tome koja je njegova uloga? Rekao je: "Ja vodim organizaciju volontera. Talentirani ljudi me ne žele posvuda slijediti. Žele stvarati budućnost sa mnom. Moj posao je da njegujem odozdo prema gore i ne dopustim da se izrodi kaos." Kako je vidio svoju ulogu? "Ja sam uzor, ljudsko ljepilo, ja sam poveznica, ja spajam stajališta. Nikad ih ne diktiram." Savjet kako da vježbate svoju ulogu? Zaposlite ljude koji će se svađati s vama. I pogodite što? Nekada je najbolje namjerno biti nejasan i maglovit.
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.
Neki od vas se možda pitaju, što ti ljudi razmišljaju? Oni razmišljaju: "Nisam vizionar, ja sam društveni arhitekt. Stvaram prostor gdje su ljudi voljni i sposobni dijeliti i spajati svoje talente i strasti." Ako neke od vas trenutno brine što ne radite u Pixaru, ili u Googleu, reći ću vam da još postoji nada. Proučavali smo mnogo organizacija koje nisu onakve kakvima biste zamišljali one gdje se događa mnogo inovacija.
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.
Proučavali smo opće vijeće u farmaceutskom poduzeću koje je moralo shvatiti kako da vanjske odvjetnike, 19 natjecatelja, navedu da surađuju i inoviraju. Proučavali smo vrh marketinga u njemačkom proizvođaču automobila gdje su, temeljno, vjerovali da su inžinjeri dizajna, a ne marketinški stručnjaci, ti kojima je dopušteno biti inovatian. Proučavali smo i Vineeta Nayara na HCL Technologies, indijsko outsourcing poduzeće. Kada smo upoznali Vineeta, njegovo poduzeće je, po njegovim riječma, postajalo nevažno. Gledali smo kako je preokrenuo poduzeće u globalni generator IT inovacija. Na HCL Technologies, kao i u mnogim poduzećima, voditelji su naučili da je njihova uloga zadati smjer i osigurati da nitko ne odstupa od njega. Ono što je napravio, je da im je rekao da je vrijeme da razmisle o ponovnom zaključivanju onoga što trebaju napraviti. Ono što se događalo je da su svi gledali prema gore i niste mogli vidjeti inovaciju odozdo prema gore kao u Pixaru ili Googleu. Pa su počeli raditi na tome.
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.
Prestali su davati odgovore, prestali su pokušavati davati rješenja. Umjesto toga, počeli su vidjeti ljude na dnu piramide, mlade iskre, ljude koji su najbliži korisnicima, kao izvor inovacija. Počeli su prebacivati rast organizacije na tu razinu. Na Vineetovom jeziku, radilo se o okretanju piramide kako biste oslobodili moć mnogih otpuštajući vlast nekolicine, i povećali kvalitetu i brzinu inovacija koje se događaju svaki dan.
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.
Zasigurno su Vineet i svi ostali vođe koje smo proučavali ustvari vizionari. Zasigurno razumiju da to nije njihova uloga. Stoga ne mislim da je slučajno što niste prepoznali Eda. Jer Ed, kao i Vineet, razumije da je uloga vođa postaviti binu, a ne nastupati na njoj. Ako želimo izumiti bolju budućnost, a mislim da je to razlog zašto su mnogi ovdje, moramo ponovno zamisliti svoj zadatak. Naš zadatak je stvoriti prostor gdje svačiji dio genija može biti oslobođen i usmjeren i pretvoren u rad kolektivnog genija.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)