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.
你看過成群飛行的鳥嗎? 上千隻的動物, 以完美的協調性成群飛行, 這是不是很迷人呢? 我覺得值得注意的是: 若這些鳥只能跟著一位領袖, 那牠們便無法如此成群飛行了。 因為牠們的反應速度會太慢。 相反地,科學家相信這些鳥 依循著幾個簡單的原則, 這些原則讓每一隻鳥 都可以自主決策, 同時以完美的協調性成群飛行。 牠們的共識讓牠們能夠具自主性, 而牠們的自主性 讓團隊飛行更快速、靈活。
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?
那這跟我們有什麼關係呢? 這是詮釋我相信現今的工作方式 需做重大改變的一種方法。 世界變得愈來愈快、越錯綜複雜, 所以我們需要新的工作方式, 以目的為核心達成共識, 摒棄繁文縟節, 授權人們使其能更快速地做出決策。 但問題是: 為了達成目標, 我們願意放棄什麼?
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?
幾年前,我與一間銀行合作, 他們想進行數位化的改革。 銀行希望提供更簡單、 直覺式和適切的服務。 我不確定多少人 知道銀行的內部作業, 讓我試著形容一下傳統的銀行: 你看到許多人穿著西裝, 搭著電梯抵達他們的部門, 行銷人員坐一起, 工程師們坐一起,依此類推。 你看到二十個人的會議, 沒有作出任何決定。 若有好主意, 最終也埋沒在簡報堆裡。 還有數不盡部門間的會簽。 把事情搞定似乎是遙遙無期。 這間銀行知道為了變革, 他們必須大幅地改變工作的方式 以加速產品的上市時間。 但該怎麼做呢?
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.
為了汲取一些靈感, 我們去拜訪那些看起來 很有創意的公司, 像 Google, Netflix, Spotify, Zappos。 我記得當我們走進 其中一間公司的大廳, 在 2014 年的十二月, 一個管理顧問跟一群銀行家。 我們自覺像是造訪異地的異鄉客, 被懶骨頭沙發、連帽運動衫、 許多聰明有創意的員工給包圍。 我們請教:「你們的公司 是如何組織運作的?」 我們預期會拿到一張組織表, 但是,他們畫了些 標著有趣名稱的奇怪圖案, 像是「小隊」、 「地方分會」或是「部落」, 來解釋他們是如何運作的。
So then we tried to translate that to our own world. We asked, "How many people are working for you?"
我們試著把這些轉譯成自己的語言。 我們接著問: 「有多少人為你工作呢?」
"It depends."
「看狀況。」
"Who do you report to?"
「你向誰報告呢?」
"It depends."
「看狀況。」
"Who decides on your priorities?"
「誰決定你工作的優先順序呢?」
"It depends."
「看狀況。」
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."
你可以想像我們有多訝異。 我們自認請教的是一些 關於組織的基本原則, 而他們的回答卻是「看狀況」。
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.
經過了那天的拜訪, 我們更了解他們的模式。 他們相信精簡自主的工作團隊 所擁有的力量。 他們的團隊就像小型的創業團隊。 他們讓產品部和工程師 在同一個團隊, 因此他們能與顧客一起 設計、建立、測試想法, 而無須仰賴公司其他人。 他們不需要做部門間的會簽, 他們所需要的人才都在團隊中。
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?"
那天的尾聲,我們有一個會議 來回顧我們今天的所見所學。 我們開始欣賞他們的模式, 我們已經在思考如何 將某些點子應用在銀行業上。 當下,其中一位主人, 那天全程保持緘默, 他突然開口問道: 「你們喜歡我們的模式, 但我有一個問題想問你們, 你們願意放棄什麼呢?」
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."
我們願意放棄什麼? 我們當下沒有答案, 但我們知道他是對的。 改變不只是擁抱新的方法, 同時也要放棄一些舊的作法。 現在過了五年之後, 我協助世界各地的公司 改變他們工作的方式。 顯然每家公司都有他們自己覺得 新方式對他們而言是行不通的質疑: 「我們的產品更複雜。」 「他們不像我們有這麼多老舊系統,」 或是「主管機關不會允許 我們的產業這麼做。」
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."
但對這家銀行與其他 和我合作過的公司而言, 改變是可能的。 一年之內,我們完全打破了以往 行銷、產品、通路和資訊部門間 各自為政的狀況。 三千多名的員工被重新組織成 三百五十個多專業合作團隊。 取代以往:產品部門坐在一起、 工程師們坐在一起, 現在產品經理跟工程師 隸屬於同一個團隊。 你可能是任務團隊一員: 負責開立帳戶 或行動銀行手機應用軟體等。 新組織架構正式運作的那天, 有些同事第一次握手, 才發現彼此的座位 走路僅兩分鐘的距離, 而他們可能彼此互寄電子信件 和進度報告已有十年之久的時間。 你可能聽到有人說: 「原來你就是那位 我一直追著要答案的人。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
但現在他們每天都一起喝咖啡。 如果產品經理有個想法, 他直接提出後 就可獲得鄰座工程師的意見回饋。 他們可以決定立刻進行顧客測試, 不用會簽、簡報或耗時的繁瑣手續, 直接把事情搞定。
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.
要達到這樣並不容易。 我們發現 「你們願意放棄什麼?」 就是最核心的問題。 自主決策需要多專業合作團隊。 不再是由上而下的決策過程, 我們希望讓團隊決定。 但要能這麼做, 團隊之中就必須擁有 做該決策所需的技巧與專業。 隨之而來的是困難的取捨。 我們能將不同大樓、城市甚至國家的 工作同仁共置在一起嗎? 或我們要投資更好的視訊會議設備? 我們如何確保 不同團隊行事的一致性, 我們仍然需要一些管理矩陣工具,
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.
這些組織架構、過程、 步驟的改變並不容易。 但最終, 我發現最難改變的 是我們自己的行為。 讓我試著更具體的描述:
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.
如果我們希望團隊可以 更快、更彈性、更有創意, 就像是小型的創業團隊, 那他們必須被授權並具自主性。 但這代表我們不能有主管 下指令告訴別人該: 做什麼、何時做、怎麼做。 無需微觀經理人。 這也代表每個員工都必須是領導者, 不管他們工作的職稱為何。 每個人都須積極、主動地 處理應對各種狀況。
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.
當然我們無法承受多頭馬車的團隊, 那一定會帶來混亂。 所以我們必須同時擁有共識且自主, 就像一群飛鳥一樣。 在一個組織環境裡 這需要一些新的行為。 每一個新行為也都代表了 要捨棄一些舊作法。 領導者必須確認組織裡的每一個人 有一致的整體目標──為什麼, 有一致的整體順序──做什麼。 然後他們必須放手,相信他們的團隊 將做出對的決策以達成目標。
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.
達成共識需要公開且透明的溝通。 大家常說資訊就是力量, 但對一些經理人而言, 分享資訊如同放棄權力。 不只是經理人, 團隊亦必須公開且透明的溝通, 在這些公司, 團隊常採取短時間密集工作的方式, 每一次專案的尾聲, 他們都會有一場成果展示, 公開透明地分享他們產出的成果。 每天、每位團隊成員, 都會更新他們目前各自的工作狀況; 這樣的透明程度可能 會讓有些人覺得不自在, 因為突然沒有任何隱藏的空間。 大家做的每件事都是公開、透明的。 所以達成共識並不容易, 提供自主權也不是一蹴可及。
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."
另一家公司的一位主管, 曾以「進度管理專家」自詡; 而現今,若想掌握狀況, 他不再是看進度報告, 他必須走進每一個團隊 參加他們的活動; 不再是告訴別人該怎麼做, 而是尋找幫助團隊的方式。 對曾為「進度管理專家」的人來說, 這是一個重大的改變。 但這位主管說:「在舊的思維裡, 我只擁有控制的假象, 實際上,許多專案仍會 延遲、超出預算; 現在我擁有更高的掌握度, 必要的話,我可以及早修正事態。」
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.
中階經理人亦必須改變。 首先,沒有工作移交與簡報, 將需要更少的中階經理人。 在舊的思維裡, 區分了「思考者」跟「執行者」, 員工只是執行著命令。 現在除了單純管理員工, 中階經理人更被期待扮演著 教練兼球員的角色。 想像一下:過去十年, 你只需要告訴別人做什麼, 但現在你被期待要親力親為。
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.
顯然這樣的模式 並不是所有人都能接受, 一些人才也因此離開了公司。 但結果是帶入了 降低官僚色彩的新職場文化。 這些成果得來不易, 但這很值得。 我合作的那些公司, 以往他們一年僅能部署 幾次的特色產品, 現在他們每隔幾週就能做到; 無須工作會簽、耗時的繁瑣手續, 整個工作組織變得更有效率。 最後,若你走進這些公司的大廳, 你能感受到一股新的能量。 就像走在一間 非常大型的新創公司裡。
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.
平心而論, 這些公司還不能自稱已經成功。 但至少這樣新的模式, 他們應對的能力更強。 世界愈來愈快、複合愈深, 我們必須重新調整工作的方式。 而其中最難的, 不是改變架構、過程或步驟, 也不僅是讓資深經理人負責掌理。 那些擁抱改變的人, 就是組織裡的領導者。 我們必須一同領導變革。
So the question is: What are you willing to give up?
而那核心的問題是: 「你們願意放棄什麼?」
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)