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.
Perkenalkan, saya adalah seorang guru besar bisnis yang berambisi melahirkan pemimpin. Namun, saya sadar bahwa kepemimpinan yang baik belum tentu melahirkan inovasi.
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.
Sebagai seorang etnografer, saya menggunakan antropologi untuk mengerti tiap pertanyaan menarik. Bersama tiga teman, saya menghabiskan hampir satu dekade mengamati para pembawa inovasi hebat dari dekat. Kami mengamati 16 pria dan wanita, yang berasal dari tujuh negara, dalam 12 industri yang berbeda. Selama ratusan jam, di lapangan mencermati aksi para pemimpin ini. Berbekal berlembar-lembar catatan, kami menganalisis dan mencari pola tindakan para pemimpin Hasilnya? Jika kita ingin membuat organisasi yang berinovasi terus menerus kita harus buang ide kuno kita tentang kepemimpinan.
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.
Berinovasi tidak sekedar membuat visi, dan membuat orang lain mengerjakannya. Jadi, apa itu inovasi? Inovasi berarti hal yang baru dan berguna. Bisa sebuah produk atau jasa; sebuah proses atau cara berorganisasi; sebuah evolusi ataupun terobosan. Kami punya simpulan yang cukup bulat.
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.
Berapa banyak dari Anda yang mengenal pria ini? Silakan angkat tangan. Tetap angkat tangan Anda, jika Anda kenal pria ini. Bagaimana dengan mereka? (Tawa) Dari tangan Anda, sepertinya... banyak yang sudah menonton film Pixar, tapi sedikit yang mengenal Ed Catmull, pendiri dan CEO Pixar -- perusahaan yang kebetulan saya kaji.
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.
Saya mengunjungi Pixar pertama kali pada 2005, saat "Ratatouille" sedang digarap, film provokatif yang menceritakan mimpi seekor tikus menjadi juru masak. Dewasa ini, film bergrafik komputer lazim ditemui, butuh 20 tahun bagi Ed dan koleganya untuk membuat film bergrafik komputer pertama. 20 tahun setelahnya, 14 film berhasil diproduksi. Kembalinya dari Pixar, saya ingin menyampaikan Ke-15 film tersebut adalah kesuksesan Pixar.
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.
Saat berpikir tentang inovasi, kita membayangkan Einstein dengan momen 'Aha!'-nya. Tapi kita tahu bahwa itu hanyalah mitos. Inovasi bukan tentang kecerdasan perorangan, melainkan kecerdasan kelompok. Sejenak pikirkanlah bagaimana film Pixar diproduksi: Mustahil film mereka diproduksi oleh satu orang secara instan. Kenyataannya, butuh 250 orang dan 4-5 tahun untuk memproduksi satu 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.
Untuk memahami proses tersebut, seseorang di Pixar membuat grafik ini, dengan malas-malasan, Karena grafik ini menyiratkan rangkaian proses, yang harus dikerjakan berkelompok secara seksama. Meski dengan anak panah tersebut, gambar ini belum mampu bercerita betapa banyak dan rumit prosesnya.
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.
Sepanjang produksi, ada perubahan cerita. Bayangkan. Ada adegan yang diambil dengan cepat. Tanpa aturan. Tergantung seberapa rumit tantangannya yang dihadapi, sebuah ide bisa muncul secara mendadak. Jika Anda ingat film "Up", ada adegan Russell memberi coklat kepada burung, butuh 6 bulan bagi animator untuk menyempurnakan adegan 10 detik tsb.
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.
Hal menarik lainnya dari film Pixar, tidak ada bagian yang dianggap selesai sampai produksi diselesaikan. Misalnya, saat animator membuat tokoh dengan alis melengkung agar tampak jahat. Sutradara mungkin suka saat melihatnya, dia pikir itu hebat. Hingga kemudian, "Hapus. Itu tidak cocok dengan penokohannya." 2 minggu kemudian, sutradara kembali & berkata, "Pasang alisnya untuk beberapa detik." Karena opini animator dihargai sebagai bagian dari keahliannya, ia membantu sutradara untuk menghidupkan tokoh secara halus namun penting bagi penyempurnaan cerita.
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.
Kita tahu bahwa inti dari inovasi terdapat paradoks. Anda harus menggali bakat dan minat banyak orang dan mengasahnya agar bermanfaat. Inovasi adalah sebuah perjalanan. Bentuk dari upaya pemecahan masalah bersama, sekelompok orang dengan ragam keahlian dan pandangan.
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?
Jarang ada inovasi yang langsung sempurna. Seperti Anda ketahui, inovasi adalah buah dari eksperimen. Diawali dengan awal yang keliru, salah langkah, dan kealpaan. Inovasi bisa sangat menggairahkan, tapi juga amat menakutkan. Bagaimana Pixar melakukannya? tanyakan pada diri sendiri, apa yang terjadi?
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.
Sejarah dan Hollywood tentu saja dipenuhi tim bertabur bintang yang pernah gagal. Kegagalan yang sering dihubungkan dengan terlalu banyak pemain yang terlibat. Tapi kenapa Pixar dengan timnya yang besar dapat sukses lagi dan lagi? Saat kami mengkaji sebuah bank Islam di Dubai, merek mewah di Korea, atau organisasi sosial di Afrika, kami menyimpulkan organisasi inovatif adalah kelompok yang cakap dalam tiga hal: Kreatif dalam masa abrasi, bergerak, dan membuat putusan. Kreatif dalam masa abrasi berarti kemampuan mengumpulkan gagasan melalui perdebatan dan diskusi. Organisasi inovatif menghargai perbedaan, bukan menghilangkannya. Proses ini tidak sama dengan tukar pikiran di mana penilaian ditiadakan. Meski tahu cara memotivasi diri, mereka tidak tahu berargumen dengan benar untuk menampung setiap kemungkinan.
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.
Individu dalam organisasi inovatif selain belajar mencari tahu, mendengarkan, mereka juga belajar mengemukakan pandangannya. Mereka tahu inovasi jarang terjadi tanpa adanya keragaman dan konflik. Kreatif bergerak berarti mampu menguji dan menyempurnakan gagasan melalui pencarian, refleksi, dan penyesuaian secara cepat. Inti proses ini adalah bereksplorasi menuju masa depan dengan bebas. Proses ini tentang desain berfikir yang juga berarti menggabungkan metode ilmiah dengan seni. Bereksperimen bukan menjalankan komando.
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.
Bereksperimen berarti belajar. Saat mendapat masukan negatif, Anda tetap mempelajari hal baru. Menjalankan komando terbatas pada upaya yang benar. Ketika gagal, muncul pelemparan kesalahan. Terakhir, kreatif membuat putusan. Proses ini berarti membuat keputusan dengan menggabungkan setiap ide, bahkan yang berlawanan demi terciptanya kombinasi baru dalam menghasilkan solusi baru dan efektif. Organisasi inovatif tidak pernah menyesuaikan diri untuk diterima. Mereka tidak berkompromi. Mereka menolak dominasi kelompok atau individu. bahkan kepada atasan atau pakar. Mereka justru mengembangkan proses pengambilan keputusan dengan kepala dingin dan menyeluruh. Hal ini memungkinkan mereka mendapat banyak solusi, alih-alih solusi tunggal. Ketiga kemampuan ini menjelaskan mengapa Pixar bisa berhasil.
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.
Contoh lainnya adalah grup infrastruktur Google. Kelompok itu bertugas menjaga situs mereka terus berjalan setiap saat. Jadi ketika Google memperkenalkan Gmail dan YouTube, mereka sadar sistem penyimpanan mereka tidak mencukupi. Orang yg mengepalai para insinyur dan kelompok pada waktu itu adalah pria bernama Bill Coughran. Bill bersama tim eksekutifnya, yang ia sebut Brain Trust bertugas mencari solusi atas masalah itu. Setelah beberapa lama. Bukannya membentuk sebuah grup khusus, mereka justru memfasilitasi kemunculan grup secara spontan dengan segala kemungkinannya.
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."
Dua grup bersatu. Satu menjadi Big Table, dan lainnya Build It From Scratch. Big Table mengusulkan untuk memanfaat sistem yang ada. Build It From Scratch mengusulkan pembuatan sistem baru. Secara terpisah, kedua tim diperbolehkan bekerja penuh waktu dengan pendekatan masing-masing. Dalam sebuah artikel, Bill menjelaskan perannya, "Menanamkan kejujuran dalam sengitnya perdebatan."
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.
Sebelumnya, timnya diminta membuat model dengan tujuan "untuk menyadarkan dan membiarkan mereka menemukan sendiri kekuatan dan kelemahan dari pendekatan yang mereka pakai." Saat Build It From Scratch menunjukkan prototipenya dengan alarm yang akan mati di tengah malam jika terjadi sesuatu pada situs mereka, mereka sadar desain mereka terbatas. Dan ketika solusi semakin dibutuhkan, data dan bukti mulai berdatangan, semakin jelas bahwa solusi yg ditawarkan Big Table adalah yang paling tepat untuk saat itu. Maka diputuskanlah.
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.
Untuk memastikan mereka belajar dari tim Build It From Scratch, Bill meminta 2 anggotanya untuk bergabung pada tim baru yang akan menangani sistem generasi masa depan. Proses ini menghabiskan waktu 2 tahun, dan ingat bahwa mereka bekerja dengan ritme luar biasa cepat.
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."
Di tahap awal, salah seorang insinyur menghampiri Bill dan berkata, "Kita terlalu sibuk untuk sistem yang tidak efisien akibat 2 eksperimen ini." Seiring proses berlanjut, ia pun paham kebaikan dari memaksimalkan potensi para orang bertalenta. Ia mengaku, "Jika Anda memaksa kami untuk menjadi satu tim, kami mungkin hanya berfokus pada siapa yang benar, dan menang, bukan pada pembelajaran dan penemuan yang menjadi solusi terbaik bagi 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.
Mengapa Pixar dan Google dapat terus berinovasi? Ini karena mereka menguasai ketiga kemampuan tadi. Mereka tahu cara memecahkan masalah bersama-sama, cara belajar dengan bereksplorasi, dan cara membuat keputusan terpadu.
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.
Anda yang duduk di sana mungkin sedang bergumam, "Kami tidak tahu bagaimana mempraktikannya pada organisasi kami. Jadi, bagaimana Pixar bisa melakukannya, Juga Google?" Ketika para bawahan Bill bercerita, bagi mereka, Bill adalah salah satu pemimpin terbaik di Silicon Valley, kami sepenuhnya setuju; ia memang jenius.
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.
Memimpin membutuhkan teknik rahasia. Tapi ini adalah bentuk lain dari kepemimpinan, bukan seperti yang kebanyakan kita pikirkan. Salah satu pemimpin yang pernah saya temui berkata, "Linda, saya gak butuh buku kepemimpinan. Membacanya bikin saya merasa tidak enak." (Tawa) "Bab 1 meminta saya utk merancang visi. Sekalipun mengikutinya, saya tidak punya jawabannya. Saya tidak tahu arah yang dituju. dan bahkan tidak yakin bisa sampai di sana." Yang pasti, ada waktunya kepemimpinan visioner dibutuhkan oleh kita.
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.
Tapi jika kita ingin organisasi dapat terus berinovasi, kita harus merombak pemahaman kita tentang kepemimpinan. Melakukan inovasi berarti membangun ruang bagi tim untuk mau dan mampu bekerja keras demi menciptakan masalah secara inovatif.
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)
Sampai di sini, beberapa dari Anda mungkin berpikir, "Sebenarnya apa itu kepemimpinan?" Pixar percaya inovasi membutuhkan banyak orang. Para pemimpinnya berfokus untuk menciptakan rasa memiliki dan mengembangkan ketiga kemampuan itu. Apa arti kepemimpinan bagi mereka? Kepemimpinan berarti menciptakan dunia yang diinginkan oleh setiap orang. Dunia seperti apa yang diinginkan Pixar? Dunia di mana Anda mendiami batas akhir. Pada apa mereka berfokus? Bukan menciptakan visi. Melainkan, "Bagaimana mendesain studio menjadi ruang publik sebagai wadah berinteraksi? Dengan adanya kebijakan yang mendorong siapa pun untuk menyampaikan opini mereka kepada sutradara tentang filmnya. Apa yg dapat kita lakukan untuk memastikan bahwa setiap disrupsi dan suara minoritas dapat didengar dalam organisasi? Dan murah hati dalam memberi penghargaan." Jika Anda pernah memperhatikan daftar tim produksi pada film Pixar, bahwa bayi yang lahir selama produksi pun turut dicantumkan. (Tawa)
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.
Bagaimana Bill sendiri melihat perannya? Bill berkata, "Saya memimpin para sukarelawan. Orang berbakat tidak pernah patuh pada apa pun perintahku. Mereka hanya ingin menciptakan masa depan denganku. Pekerjaanku adalah mendidik bawahan naik ke atas dan tidak membiarkannya terjatuh dalam kekalutan." Bagaimana ia melihat perannya? "Saya adalah panutan, perekat, penghubung, penengah. Bukan pemaksa kehendak." Punya saran cara memainkan peran Anda? Pekerjakan orang yang berlawanan dengan Anda. Dan tebak? Kadang lebih baik bersikap tak jelas dan samar.
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.
Kalian mungkin berpikir, Apa yang mereka pikirkan? Sebenarnya mereka sedang berpikir. "Saya bukan visioner, tapi arsitek sosial. Saya membangun ruang di mana orang mau dan mampu untuk berbagi dan menggabungkan bakat dan semangat mereka." Jika Anda risau karena tidak pernah bekerja untuk Pixar, atau Google, Anda masih punya harapan. Kami mengkaji banyak organisasi yang dianggap tidak lazim menelurkan inovasi.
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.
Kami mengkaji penasihat hukum perusahaan farmasi yang sedang mencari pengacara, 19 pesaing berkolaborasi & berinovasi. Kami mengkaji direktur pemasaran produsen mobil Jerman di mana mereka beranggapan bahwa insinyur desain bukan praktisi pemasaran yang dapat berinovasi. Kami juga mengkaji Vineet Nayar dari HCL Technologies, perusahaan penyedia tenaga kerja asal India. Ketika kami bertemu Vineet, ia menganggap perusahaannya menyimpang. Kami mengamati kala HCL berubah menjadi penggerak inovasi TI skala global. Di HCL, seperti perusahaan pada umumnya, para pemimpin memahami perannya sebagai pemberi arahan dan memastikan tidak ada penyimpangan. Vineet memberitahu mereka waktunya bagi para pemimpin untuk mempertimbangkan kembali apa yang semestinya mereka lakukan. Karena yang terjadi adalah semua orang melihat ke atas tanpa menyadari kebutuhan akan inovasi hirarkis sebagaimana terjadi pada Pixar dan Google. Sejak itu mereka mengupayakannya.
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.
Mereka tak lagi menyediakan jawaban atau solusi. Melainkan mulai mengamati orang-orang yg berada di posisi terbawah, para pencetus muda, orang-orang yang dekat dengan para pelanggan, sebagai sumber inovasi. Mereka mulai mengalihkan pertumbuhan organisasi pada tahap tersebut. Menurut Vineet, ini disebut membalikkan piramida untuk menghimpun banyak kekuatan dengan melepaskan sedikit penguasaan jabatan, sambil meningkatkan mutu dan kecepatan berinovasi sebagaimana terjadi hari ini.
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.
Kenyataannya, Vineet dan semua pemimpin yang kami kaji adalah visioner. Jelas mereka tahu apa yang bukan menjadi peran mereka. Jadi, saya tidak melihat ketidaktahuan Anda tentang Ed adalah kebetulan. Karena Ed, seperti juga Vineet, memahami peran kita sebagai pemimpin ialah mempersiapkan panggung, bukan tampil. Jika kita ingin menciptakan masa depan yang lebih baik, dan itulah mengapa kita berada di sini, kita harus menata kembali tugas kita. Tugas untuk membangun ruang di mana setiap kecerdasan yang ada pada setiap orang dapat digali dan bermanfaat, serta diwujudkan ke dalam karya hasil dari kecerdasan bersama.
Thank you.
Terima kasih.
(Applause)
(Tepuk tangan)