Fifteen years ago, I thought that the diversity stuff was not something I had to worry about. It was something an older generation had to fight for. In my university, we were 50-50, male-female, and we women often had better grades. So while not everything was perfect, diversity and leadership decisions was something that would happen naturally over time, right?
十五年前, 我並不覺得我需要 擔心多樣性的問題。 這問題是老一輩的人 才需要去努力爭取的。 在我就讀的大學,男女比例各半, 我們女生的成績通常都比較好。 所以,雖然並非一切都很完美, 多樣性和領導決策 是隨時間就會自然發生的,對吧?
Well, not quite. While moving up the ladder working as a management consultant across Europe and the US, I started to realize how often I was the only woman in the room and how homogenous leadership still is. Many leaders I met saw diversity as something to comply with out of political correctness, or, best case, the right thing to do, but not as a business priority. They just did not have a reason to believe that diversity would help them achieve their most immediate, pressing goals: hitting the numbers, delivering the new product, the real goals they are measured by.
嗯,不見得。 當我繼續向上爬,當上了管理顧問, 在歐洲和美國各地工作, 我開始發現到,我常常是 房間中唯一的女性, 且領導階層仍然是非常同質性的。 我見過許多領導人 視多樣性為由於政治正確性 而要去遵守的東西, 或者最多視為對的、該做的事, 但不是企業的優先考量。 他們沒有理由相信 多樣性能協助他們 達成最立即、最緊迫的目標: 讓數字達標、推出新產品等等, 那些用來評量他們的目標。
My personal experience working with diverse teams had been that while they require a little bit more effort at the beginning, they did bring fresher, more creative ideas. So I wanted to know: Are diverse organizations really more innovative, and can diversity be more than something to comply with? Can it be a real competitive advantage?
我和多樣性團隊合作的個人經驗是 雖然在一開始他們需要多點努力, 他們確實能帶來更新鮮、 更有創意的想法。 所以,我想要知道: 多樣性組織真的比較創新嗎? 多樣性能不能不只是 一項該遵守的東西? 它能不能成為真正的競爭優勢?
So to find out, we set up a study with the Technical University of Munich. We surveyed 171 companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and as we speak, we're expanding the study to 1,600 companies in five additional countries around the world. We asked those companies basically two things: how innovative they are and how diverse they are.
為了找出答案,我們和慕尼黑 工業大學合作了一項研究。 我們調查了德國、奧地利、 和瑞士的 171 間公司, 現在我正在說話的同時, 我們已經把研究擴展到另外五個國家 達 1,600 間公司了。 我們問那些公司兩項基本的東西: 問它們的創新以及多樣性的程度。
To measure the first one, we asked them about innovation revenue. Innovation revenue is the share of revenues they've made from new products and services in the last three years, meaning we did not ask them how many creative ideas they have, but rather if these ideas translate into products and services that really make the company more successful today and tomorrow. To measure diversity, we looked at six different factors: country of origin, age and gender, amongst others.
為了要測量第一項, 我們問它們創新收益相關的問題。 創新收益是在過去三年間, 新產品和新服務佔了多少收益, 也就是說,我們並沒有問 它們有多少創意想法, 而是這些創意想法 是否使得公司現在和未來的 產品和服務更為成功。 為了測量多樣性, 我們檢視六個不同的因子: 原國籍、年齡、性別,和其他。
While preparing to go in the field with those questions, I sat down with my team and we discussed what we would expect as a result. To put it mildly, we were not optimistic. The most skeptical person on the team thought, or saw a real possibility, that we would find nothing at all. Most of the team was rather on the cautious side, so we landed all together at "only if," meaning that we might find some kind of link between innovation and diversity, but not across the board -- rather only if certain criteria are met, for example leadership style, very open leadership style that allowed people to speak up freely and safely and contribute.
在準備要帶著那些問題去實做時, 我和團隊坐下來討論 我們期待怎樣的結果。 用溫和的說法,我們並不樂觀。 最多疑的那位團隊成員認為 很可能我們什麼都發現不了。 大多數團隊成員比較謹慎, 所以我們最後談的都是「只限於」, 意思是我們可能會找到 創新和多樣性之間的某種連結, 但並非全面適用, 而是「只限於」某些 標準被達到的情況下, 比如,領導風格, 非常開放的領導風格, 讓人們能夠自由且安全地 發表意見和做出貢獻。
A couple of months later, the data came in, and the results convinced the most skeptical amongst us. The answer was a clear yes, no ifs, no buts. The data in our sample showed that more diverse companies are simply more innovative, period.
幾個月後,資料進來了, 結果說服了我們當中最多疑的人。 答案很明顯是「是的」, 沒有「如果」,沒有「但是」, 我們樣本的資料顯示, 比較多樣化的公司 就是比較創新,就這樣。
Now, a fair question to ask is the chicken or the egg question, meaning, are companies really more innovative because they have a more diverse leadership, or the other way around? Which way is it? Now, we do not know how much is correlation versus causation, but what we do know is that clearly, in our sample, companies that are more diverse are more innovative, and that companies that are more innovative have more diverse leadership, too. So it's fair to assume that it works both ways, diversity driving innovation and innovation driving diversity.
現在應該要問的問題, 是雞生蛋或蛋生雞的問題, 意思是,公司會比較創新 真的是因為它們有 比較多樣化的領導階層嗎? 或是反過來? 哪個才是真的? 我們不知道在這相關性中 有多少的因果關係, 但我們確實知道,很明顯, 在我們的樣本中, 比較多樣化的公司就比較創新, 而比較創新的公司 也有比較多樣化的領導階層。 所以可以假設兩個方向都是對的, 多樣性導致創新,創新導致多樣性。
Now, once we published the results, we were surprised about the reactions in the media. We got quite some attention. And it went from quite factual, like "Higher Female Share Boosts Innovation" to a little bit more sensationalist.
在我們發表了結果之後, 媒體的反應讓我們很驚訝。 我們得到了不少的關注。 從事實性的描述, 如「女性比例較高會激發創新」, 到稍微聳動些的。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
As you can see, "Stay-at-home Women Cost Trillions," and, my personal favorite, "Housewives Kill Innovation." Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
你們可以看到, 「女性待在家的代價高達數兆元」, 我個人的最愛是這個, 「家庭主婦扼殺了創新」。 沒有所謂的負面宣傳,對吧?
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
On the back of that coverage, we started to get calls from senior executives wanting to understand more, especially -- surprise, surprise -- about gender diversity. I tend to open up those discussions by asking, "Well, what do you think of the situation in your organization today?" And a frequent reaction to that is, "Well, we're not yet there, but we're not that bad." One executive told me, for example, "Oh, we're not that bad. We have one member in our board who is a woman."
緊接在那報導之後, 我們開始接到高階主管打來的電話, 他們想了解更多, 尤其讓人驚訝的 是特別想了解性別的多樣性。 對於這類的討論,我通常 開場的方式是先問: 「你認為現今在你組織內 是怎樣的情況?」 對這個問題,常見的反應是: 「嗯,我們還沒做到, 但我們也沒太糟。」 比如,有位主管告訴我: 「喔,我們沒那麼糟。 我們的董事當中有一名女性。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And you laugh --
你會笑出來──
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Now, you laugh, but he had a point in being proud about it, because in Germany, if you have a company and it has one member on the board who is a woman, you are part of a select group of 30 out of the 100 largest publicly listed companies. The other 70 companies have an all-male board, and not even one of these hundred largest publicly listed companies have, as of today, a female CEO. But here's the critically important insight. Those few female board members alone, they won't make a difference. Our data shows that for gender diversity to have an impact on innovation, you need to have more than 20 percent women in leadership. Let's have a look at the numbers. As you can see, we divided the sample into three groups, and the results are quite dramatic. Only in the group where you have more than 20 percent women in leadership, only then you see a clear jump in innovation revenue to above-average levels. So experience and data shows that you do need critical mass to move the needle, and companies like Alibaba, JP Morgan or Apple have as of today already achieved that threshold.
你現在會笑,但他對此 感到自豪其實是有根據的, 因為在德國, 如果你有一間公司, 公司有一名女性董事, 你就是前百大公開上市公司當中 特出的三十家之一。 另外七十間公司的董事全都是男性, 而這百大公開上市的公司中, 沒有任何一家有女性執行長, 截至今天都沒有。 但,我要再提出個重要的洞察。 只有那少數幾位女性董事, 她們無法造成不同。 我們的資料顯示, 若要讓性別多樣性影響創新, 你得要在領導階層裡面 有超過 20% 的女性。 我們來看看數字。 如你們所見,我們把樣本分成三組, 結果十分引人注目。 只有在領導階層有 超過 20% 女性的那一組, 只有在那一組, 才看得見創新收益 明顯提升到超過平均值以上。 所以,經驗和資料顯示, 你的確需要關鍵人數 才能移動一根針, 像阿里巴巴、摩根大通、 蘋果等這些公司, 現今已經達到了那個門檻。
Another reaction I got quite a lot was, "Well, it will get solved over time." And I have all the sympathy in the world for that point of view, because I used to think like that, too. Now, let's have a look here again and look at the numbers, taking Germany as an example. Let me first give you the good news. So the share of women who are college graduates and have at least 10 years of professional experience has grown nicely over the last 20 years, which means the pool in which to fish for female leaders has increased over time, and that's great. Now, according to my old theory, the share of women in leadership would have grown more or less in parallel, right? Now, let's have a look at what happened in reality. It's not even close, which means I was so wrong and which means that my generation, your generation, the best-educated female generation in history, we have just not made it. We have failed to achieve leadership in significant numbers. Education just did not translate into leadership.
我還常碰到的另一種反應是: 「嗯,隨時間過去, 問題就會解決。」 對於那種觀點,我非常同情, 因為我也曾經那麼想。 現在我們再來看看數字, 用德國當例子。 我先告訴各位好消息。 大學畢業並且至少具有 十年專業經驗的女性比例, 在過去二十年間都一直在成長, 意思就是,女性領導人的人才庫 隨著時間越來越大了, 這點是很棒的。 根據我的舊理論, 領導階層的女性比例 應該多少也會平行成長,對嗎? 我們來看看現實的狀況。 還差很遠, 這意味著,我錯得可大了, 也意味著我的世代, 你的世代, 史上教育程度最高的女性世代, 我們就是還沒成功。 我們沒能達成在領導階層 佔有顯著的人數。 教育程度並不會直接轉成領導階層。
Now, that was a painful realization for me and made me realize, if we want to change this, we need to engage, and we need to do better. Now, what to do? Achieving more than 20 percent women in leadership seems like a daunting task to many, understandably, given the track record. But it's doable, and there are many companies today that are making progress there and doing it successfully. Let's take SAP, the software company, as an example. They had, in 2011, 19 percent women in leadership, yet they decided to do better, and they did what you do in any other area of business where you want to improve. They set themselves a measurable target. So they set themselves a target of 25 percent for 2017, which they have just achieved. The goals made them think more creatively about developing leaders and tapping new recruiting pools. They now even set a target of 30 percent women in leadership for 2022.
對我而言,那是種痛苦的領會, 讓我了解到, 如果我們想要改變這狀況, 我們得要參與投入,且要做得更好。 所以,該怎麼做? 達成在領導階層至少有 20% 是女性的這項任務, 對許多人來說,似乎挺讓人氣餒, 從過往記錄來看,這是可理解的。 但這是可行的, 現今有很多公司在這方面都有進展, 且成功做到這一點。 咱們用思愛普(SAP) 軟體公司來當例子, 在 2011 年,他們的 領導階層有 19% 是女性, 但他們仍然決定要再做更好些, 而他們的做法,就和你在 任何其他商業領域中 想做改善時的做法一樣。 他們為自己設定了可測量的目標。 他們設定的目標是, 在 2017 年達到 25%, 他們已經達到這個目標了。 因為有目標,在開發領導人方面 他們會做更創意的思考, 也會去開闢新的人才招募來源。 他們現在甚至把 2022 年目標 設為領導階層要有 30% 女性。
So experience shows it's doable, and at the end of the day, it all boils down to two decisions that are taken every day in every organization by many of us: who to hire and who to develop and promote. Now, nothing against women's programs, networks, mentoring, trainings. All is good. But it is these two decisions that at the end of the day send the most powerful change signal in any organization.
所以,經驗顯示這是做得到的, 且到頭來, 都能歸結到每天要做的 兩項決策,在每個組織中, 我們許多人都要做這兩項決策: 要僱用誰、要發展誰,及要提拔誰。 我們不是要反對 針對女性的人才計畫、 連結人際關係網、 顧問指導、教育訓練, 這些都很好。 但到頭來,是這兩項決策, 在任何組織中, 發送出最強而有力的改變信號。
Now, I never set out to be a diversity advocate. I am a business advisor. But now my goal is to change the face of leadership, to make it more diverse -- and not so that leaders can check a box and feel like they have complied with something or they have been politically correct. But because they understand, they understand that diversity is making their organization more innovative, better. And by embracing diversity, by embracing diverse talent, we are providing true opportunity for everyone.
我從來沒有打算要 成為多樣性的提倡者。 我是企業顧問。 但現在,現在我的目標 是要改變領導階層的面貌, 讓它更多樣化。 目的並不是為了讓領導人打個勾, 感覺他們已經遵守了什麼, 或是他們已經做到政治正確。 而是因為他們了解, 他們了解多樣性讓他們的組織 更創新、更出色。 透過擁抱多樣性, 透過擁抱多樣化的人才, 我們就能夠提供每個人真正的機會。
Thank you. Thank you so much.
謝謝。非常謝謝大家。
(Applause)
(掌聲)