Have you ever watched a flock of birds work together? Thousands of animals, flying in perfect synchrony: Isn't it fascinating? What I find remarkable is that these birds would not be able to do that if they all would have to follow one leader. Their reaction speed would simply be too low. Instead, scientists believe that these birds are aligned on a few simple rules, allowing every single bird to make autonomous decisions while still flying in perfect synchrony. Their alignment enables their autonomy, and their autonomy makes them fast and flexible.
Da li ste ikad posmatrali jato ptica kako sarađuju? Hiljade životinja lete u savršenoj sinhronizaciji. Zar to nije fascinantno? Ono što ja smatram izuzetnim je da te ptice ne bi to mogle da urade da moraju da slede jednog lidera. Njihova brzina reakcije bi, jednostavno, bila suviše slaba. Umesto toga, naučnici veruju da se te ptice oslanjaju na nekoliko jednostavnih pravila, čime omogućavaju svakoj ptici da donosi samostalne odluke dok i dalje lete u savršenoj sinhronizaciji. Njihova usklađenost omogućava njihovu samostalnost, a njihova samostalnost ih čini brzim i fleksibilnim.
Now, what does this have to do with any one of us? Well, it's one way of illustrating what I believe to be the most important change that is needed in ways of working today. The world is getting faster and more complex, so we need a new way of working, a way that creates alignment around purpose, that takes out bureaucracy and that truly empowers people to make decisions faster. But the question is: In order to get there, what are we willing to give up?
Dobro, kakve to ima veze sa bilo kim od nas? Pa, to je jedan od načina da se prikaže jedna od, kako ja verujem, najvažnijih promena koje su potrebne u načinu rada danas. Svet postaje brži i sve kompleksniji, tako da nam treba nov način rada, način koji stvara usklađivanje oko svrhe, koji uklanja našu birokratiju i koji uistinu podstiče ljude da brže donose odluke. Ali, pitanje je: da bismo to postigli, čega smo spremni da se odreknemo?
A few years ago, I was working with a bank that wanted to embark on a digital transformation. They wanted their offering to be simpler, more intuitive, more relevant. Now, I'm not sure how many of you have seen a bank from the inside, so let me try to illustrate what many traditional banks look like. You see lots of people in suits taking elevators to go to their department, marketers sitting with marketers, engineers with engineers, etc. You see meetings with 20 people where nothing gets decided. Great ideas? They end up in PowerPoint parking lots. And there are endless handovers between departments. Getting anything done can take forever. So this bank knew that in order to transform, they would have to improve their time to market by drastically changing their ways of working as well. But how?
Pre nekoliko godina, radio sam sa bankom koja je želela da izvrši digitalnu transformaciju. Želeli su da njihova ponuda bude jednostavnija, intuitivnija, relevantnija. Ne znam koliko je vas videlo banke iznutra, pa ću pokušati da vam dočaram kako mnoge tradicionalne banke izgledaju. Vidite gomilu ljudi u odelima koji liftom idu do svog odseka. Marketari sede sa marketarima, inženjeri sa inženjerima, itd. Vidite sastanke sa 20 ljudi na kojima se ne donese nijedna odluka. Odlične ideje? One ostaju mrtvo slovo na papiru. I tu je beskonačni niz dodavanja između odseka. Kada treba nešto da se odradi, to može trajati čitavu večnost. Dakle, u ovoj banci su znali da, kako bi se transformisali, moraju da poboljšaju svoju efikasnost na tržištu, ujedno drastično menjajući svoj način rada. Ali kako?
To get some inspiration, we decided to go and have a look at companies that seem to be more innovative, like Google, Netflix, Spotify, Zappos. And I remember how we were walking the halls at one of these companies in December 2014, a management consultant and a team of bankers. We felt like strangers in a strange land, surrounded by beanbags and hoodies and lots of smart, creative employees. So then we asked, "How is your company organized?" And we expected to get an org chart. But instead, they used strange drawings with funny names like "squads" and "chapters" and "tribes" to explain how they were organized.
Da bismo našli inspiraciju, odlučili smo da odemo i pogledamo kompanije koje su se činile inovativnijim, kao što su Gugl, Netfliks, Spotifaj i Zapos. Sećam se kako smo šetali hodnicima jedne od tih kompanija u decembru 2014, konsultant za menadžment i tim bankara. Osećali smo se kao stranci u čudnoj zemlji, okruženi vrećama za izležavanje, kapuljačama i brojnim pametnim, kreativnim zaposlenima. Onda sam ja pitao: „Kako je vaša kompanija organizovana?“ Očekivali smo da ćemo dobiti organizacionu šemu. Ali umesto toga, oni su koristili čudne crteže sa smešnim imenima, kao npr. „odredi“, „odeljci“ i „plemena“ da bi objasnili kako su organizovani.
So then we tried to translate that to our own world. We asked, "How many people are working for you?"
Pa smo onda mi pokušali to da prevedemo na naš jezik. Pitali smo: „Koliko ljudi radi za vas?“
"It depends."
„Zavisi.“
"Who do you report to?"
„Kome podnosite izveštaje?“
"It depends."
„Zavisi.“
"Who decides on your priorities?"
„Ko odlučuje o vašim prioritetima?“
"It depends."
„Zavisi.“
You can imagine our surprise. We were asking for what we thought were some of the basic principles of organizations, and their answer was, "It depends."
Možete zamisliti naš šok. Mi smo pitali o onome što smo smatrali osnovnim principima jedne organizacije, a njihov odgovor je bio „Zavisi.“
Now, over the course of that day, we gained a better understanding of their model. They believed in the power of small, autonomous teams. Their teams were like mini-start-ups. They had product people and IT engineers in the same team so they could design, build and test ideas with customers independently of others in the company. They did not need handovers between departments. They had all the skills needed right there in the team.
No, tokom tog dana, malo smo bolje shvatili njihov model. Oni su verovali u moć malih, samostalnih timova. Njihovi timovi su bili kao mali početni biznisi. Imali su ljude za proizvod i inženjere za IT u istom timu da bi mogli dizajnirati, izgraditi i testirati ideje kod potrošača nezavisno od drugih u kompaniji. Njima nisu bili potrebni prenosi između sektora. Imali su sve potrebne veštine upravo tu u timu.
Now, at the end of that day, we had a session to reflect on what we had learned. And we had started to like their model, so we were already thinking of how to apply some of these ideas to a bank. But then, one of the hosts, a guy who had not said a word all day, he suddenly said, "So I see you like our model. But I have one question for you: What are you willing to give up?"
Na kraju tog dana, imali smo sesiju za razmišljanje o tome šta smo naučili. Počeo je da nam se sviđa njihov model, pa smo počeli da razmišljamo kako da primenimo neke njihove ideje na banku. Ali je onda, jedan od domaćina, čovek koji nije rekao nijednu reč ceo dan, iznenada rekao: „Dakle, vidim da vam se dopada naš model. Imam jedno pitanje za vas: čega ste spremni da se odreknete?“
What were we willing to give up? We did not have an answer immediately, but we knew he was right. Change is not only about embracing the new; it's about giving up on some of the old as well. Now, over the past five years, I have worked with companies all over the world to change their ways of working. And clearly, every company has their own skeptics about why this is not going to work for them. "Our product is more complex," or "They don't have the legacy IT like we do," or "Regulators just won't allow this in our industry."
Čega smo bili spremni da se odreknemo? Nismo odmah imali odgovor, ali smo znali da je u pravu. Promena nije samo prihvatanje novog, već i odricanje nečeg starog. Tokom proteklih pet godina, radio sam sa kompanijama širom sveta u promeni njihovog načina rada. I jasno je, svaka kompanija ima svog skeptika koji zna zašto to neće funkcionisati kod njih. „Naš proizvod je kompleksniji,“ ili „Oni nemaju nasleđenu informacionu tehnologiju kao mi,“ ili „Kontrolori jednostavno neće to dozvoliti u našoj industriji.“
But for this bank and also for the other companies that I have worked with afterwards, change was possible. Within a year, we completely blew up the old silos between marketing, product, channels and IT. Three thousand employees were reorganized into 350 multidisciplinary teams. So instead of product people sitting just with product people and engineers with engineers, a product person and an engineer were now members of the same team. You could be a member of a team responsible for account opening or for the mobile banking app, etc. At the go-live date of that new organization, some people were shaking hands for the very first time, only to find out that they had been sitting two minutes away from each other but they were sending each other emails and status reports for the last 10 years. You would hear someone saying, "Ah, so you're the guy that I was always chasing for answers."
Ali u ovoj banci, kao i u ostalim kompanijama sa kojima sam kasnije radio, promena je bila moguća. U roku od godinu dana, u potpunosti smo razbili stare sisteme između marketinga, proizvoda kanala i IT sektora. Tri hiljade zaposlenih je bilo preraspoređeno u 350 multidisciplinarnih timova. Tako da, umesto da ljudi za proizvode sede samo sa ljudima za proizvode, a inženjeri sa inženjerima, čovek za proizvode i inženjer sada su bili članovi istog tima. Mogli ste biti član tima zaduženog za otvaranje računa ili za aplikaciju za mobilno bankarstvo i sl. Pred samo puštanje u rad ove nove organizacije, neki ljudi su se po prvi put upoznali, a saznali su da su sedeli samo dva minuta jedni od drugih, ali su u poslednjih 10 godina slali samo mejlove i izveštaje jedni drugima. Neko bi rekao: „A, ti si taj lik koga sam uvek jurio da mi odgovori.“
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But now, they're having coffee together every day. If the product guy has an idea, he can just raise it to get input from the engineer who is sitting right next to him. They can decide to test with customers immediately -- no handovers, no PowerPoints, no red tape, just getting stuff done.
Ali sad, svaki dan zajedno piju kafu. Ako tip za proizvode ima ideju, on jednostavno može da je iznese i da dobije mišljenje od inženjera koji sedi do njega. Mogu odlučiti da to odmah testiraju sa klijentima - nema prenošenja iz ruke u ruku, Pauer pointa, birokratije, samo obavljanje posla.
Now, getting there is not easy. And as it turns out, "What are you willing to give up?" is exactly the right question to ask. Autonomous decision-making requires multidisciplinary teams. Instead of decisions going up and down the organization, we want the team to decide. But to do so, we need all the skills and expertise for that decision in the team. And this brings difficult trade-offs. Can we physically co-locate our people who are working in different buildings, different cities or even different countries today? Or should we invest in better videoconferencing? And how do we ensure consistency in the way we do things across these teams? We still need some kind of management matrix.
Ali, doći do toga nije lako. I kao što se ispostavilo, „Čega ste spremni da se odreknete?“ je pravo pitanje. Samostalno odlučivanje zahteva multidisciplinarne timove. Umesto da odluke idu gore-dole po organizaciji, mi želimo da tim donese odluku. Ali da bismo to postigli, potrebne su nam sve veštine i znanja za odluke u timu. A to zahteva teške kompromise. Da li je danas moguće fizički povezati ljude koji rade u različitim zgradama, različitim gradovima ili čak različitim državama? Ili bi trebalo uložiti u bolje video-sastanke? I kako da obezbedimo doslednost u obavljanju stvari po ovim timovima? Ipak nam treba neka upravljačka matrica.
Now, all these changes to structure and process and procedure -- they are not easy. But in the end, I found that the most difficult thing to change is our own behavior. Let me try to illustrate.
Sve te promene strukture, procesa i procedura - one nisu lagane. Ali na kraju sam shvatio da je najteža promena naše ponašanje. Pokušaću da vam slikovito objasnim.
If we want these teams to be fast, flexible, creative, like a mini-start-up, they have to be empowered and autonomous. But this means we cannot have leaders commanding their people what to do, when to do, how to do. No micromanagers. But it also means that each employee needs to become a leader, regardless of their formal title. It's about all of us stepping up to take initiative.
Ako želimo da ovi timovi budu brzi, fleksibilni, kreativni, kao mali početni biznisi, mora im se obezbediti snaga i samostalnost. Ali to onda znači da ne možemo imati lidere koji će komandovati ljudima, šta da rade, kada i kako. Nema mikromenadžmenta. Ali to u isto vreme znači da svaki zaposleni postaje lider, nevezano za njihova formalna zvanja. Radi se o tome da svi mi istupimo i preuzmemo inicijativu.
Now obviously, we also cannot afford to have all these teams running in different directions, because that would certainly lead to chaos. So we need alignment and autonomy at the same time, just like a flock of birds. In an organizational setting, this requires new behaviors, and with each new behavior, there is giving up on something old as well. Leaders have to make sure that everyone in the organization is aligned around the overall purpose -- the why -- and the overall priorities -- the what. But then they have to let go and trust their teams to make the right decisions on how to get there.
Očigledno, ne možemo priuštiti da se svaki od tih timova kreće u različitim pravcima, zato što bi to neminovno dovelo do haosa. Dakle, potrebna nam je usklađenost i samostalnost u isto vreme, kao jato ptica. U organizacionom smislu, ovo zahteva novo ponašanje, a svako novo ponašanje predstavlja odricanje od nečeg starog, u isto vreme. Lideri moraju da osiguraju da svako u organizaciji bude angažovan oko opšte svrhe - zašto - i opštih prioriteta - šta. Ali tada oni moraju da puste, i da veruju svojim timovima da će doneti prave odluke o tome kako doći do tamo.
Now, creating alignment requires open and transparent communication. But you know how they say that information is a source of power? Well, for some managers, sharing information may feel as if they're giving up that source of power. And it's not just managers. The teams need to communicate openly and transparently as well. In these companies, the teams typically work in short sprints, and at the end of every sprint, they organize a demo session to share the output of what they've done, transparently. And every day, each member of the team gives an update of what they are working on individually. Now, all this transparency can be uncomfortable for people, because suddenly, there is no place to hide anymore. Everything we do is transparent for everyone. So, alignment is not easy, and providing autonomy is not so obvious, either.
Stvaranje usklađenosti zahteva otvorenu i transparentnu komunikaciju. A znate kako kažu, da je informacija izvor moći? Pa, nekim menadžerima, deljenje informacija može delovati kao da se odriču svog izvora moći. Nije reč samo o menadžerima. Timovi takođe moraju komunicirati otvoreno i transparentno. U tim kompanijama, timovi obično rade na kratke staze, i na kraju svake staze, organizuju demo sesiju kako bi izneli informacije o tome šta su uradili, transparentno. I svakog dana, svaki član tima obaveštava o tome šta oni pojedinačno rade. Sva ta transparentnost može biti neprijatna za neke ljude, zato što, odjednom, nema više mesta gde možeš da se sakriješ. Sve što radimo je transparentno za sve. Dakle, usklađivanje nije jednostavno, a ni obezbeđivanje samostalnosti nije tako očigledno.
One executive at another company likes to explain how he used to be a master of milestone-tracking. Now, today, to know how things are going, instead of looking at status reports, he needs to walk down to the team floors to attend one of their sessions. And instead of telling people what to do, he looks for ways to help them. That is radical change for someone who used to be a master of milestone-tracking. But in the old world, this executive said, "I only had the illusion of control. In reality, many projects would run over time and over budget, anyway. Now I have much more transparency, and I can course-correct much earlier if needed."
Jedan direktor u drugoj kompaniji voli da objašnjava kako je on bio gospodar u praćenju izveštaja. U današnje vreme, da bi saznao kako se stvari odvijaju, umesto da gleda u izveštaje, treba da siđe na sprat gde su timovi da bi prisustvovao jednom od njihovih sastanaka. I umesto da govori ljudima šta da rade, traži način da im pomogne. To je radikalna promena za nekog ko je bio gospodar praćenja izveštaja. Ali u starom svetu, ovaj izvršilac bi rekao: „Bio sam samo u zabludi da držim sve pod kontrolom. U stvarnosti, mnogi projekti bi svakako prešli rokove i budžet. Sad imam mnogo više transparentnosti, i mogu da usput vršim ispravke mnogo ranije, ukoliko je potrebno.“
And middle managers need to change as well. First of all, without the handovers and the PowerPoint, there's less of a need for middle managers. And in the old world, there was this idea of thinkers and doers. Employees would just follow orders. But now, instead of only managing other people, middle managers were expected to become player-coaches. So imagine, for the last 10 years, you have just been telling other people what to do, but now you're expected to do things yourself again.
Srednji menadžment takođe treba da se promeni. Prvo, bez prebacivanja obaveza i Pauer pointa, nema toliko potrebe za srednjim menadžmentom. U starom svetu, postojala je ideja o misliocima i radnicima. Zaposleni bi samo sledili naređenja. Ali sad, umesto da samo rukovode drugim ljudima, od srednjeg menadžmenta se očekuje da postanu treneri timova. Dakle, zamislite, u poslednjih 10 godina, samo ste govorili ljudima šta da rade, ali sad se od vas očekuje da sami ponovo radite.
Clearly, this model is not for everyone, and some great people leave the company. But the result is a new culture with less hierarchy. And all of this is hard work. But it's worth it. The companies that I worked with, they were used to deploying new product features a few times per year. Now they have releases every few weeks, and without the handovers and the red tape, the whole organization becomes more efficient. And finally, if you walk the halls of these companies today, you just feel a new energy. It feels as if you're walking the halls of a very large start-up.
Očigledno, ovaj model nije za svakoga, i neki sjajni ljudi su napustili kompaniju. Ali rezultat je bila nova kultura sa manje hijerarhije. Sve ovo je težak posao. Ali isplati se. Kompanije sa kojima sam radio imale su običaj da razvijaju nove proizvode nekoliko puta godišnje. Sada ih puštaju svakih nekoliko nedelja, a bez prebacivanja obaveza i birokratije, cela organizacija je postala mnogo efikasnija. I na kraju, ako prošetate hodnicima ovih kompanija danas, osećate novu energiju. Osećate se kao da hodate hodnicima jednog veoma velikog početnog biznisa.
Now, to be fair, these companies, they cannot claim victory yet. But at least with this new model, they are much better prepared to respond to change. The world is getting faster and more complex, so we need to reboot our way of working. And the hardest part of that change is not in structure or process or procedure, and it's also not just senior executives taking charge. Leaders will be all of those in the organization who embrace the change. We all have to lead the change.
Da budemo iskreni, ove kompanije ne mogu još da proglase pobedu. Ali bar su sa ovim novim modelom mnogo bolje pripremljene da odreaguju na promene. Svet postaje brži i sve kompleksniji, tako da moramo da resetujemo naš način rada. A najteži deo promene nije u strukturi, procesu ili proceduri, a takođe nije samo na višim rukovodiocima da preuzimaju kontrolu. Lideri će biti svi ljudi iz organizacije koji prihvate promene. Svi mi moramo da vodimo promene.
So the question is: What are you willing to give up?
Dakle, pitanje je: čega ste vi spremni da se odreknete?
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)